Sunday, June 27, 2010

Reply to Yvette Lessard

Apparently Yvette Lessard still thinks she has good points that I haven't answered in her blog post EIVIND BERGE: Pro-rape advocate & pals, so I am going to finish this here. See my comments at her blog for the rest and also here.
Eivind Berge does not think rape can be considered rape unless the woman (and he believes only women can be raped) resists to the best of her ability (nevermind if she is unable to give consent, not in a state of mind in which she can give consent, or is being threatened or coerced). 
Yvette's reading comprehension is rather poor. I never said only women can be raped. What I have said is only men can be rapists. She also gets my definition of rape wrong. A victim must resist to the best of her (or his) ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury. Otherwise there is no rape. Having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape unless the rapist forcibly put her in that state with the purpose of accomplishing sex with her. It might be a lesser offense, though, depending on the circumstances. If, say, a man breaks into a woman's house and finds her unconscious by chance, sex would be theft or abuse but not rape. If a woman willingly gets intoxicated and goes home with a man and he has his way with her while she is unable to resist, then there is no offense whatsoever and the man is completely innocent, doing what most men would do.
And quick note: I sincerely hope this guy gets raped. Not by women, because he’s made it rather clear he’d take any woman because he’s so desperate, and wouldn’t view it as rape. No, I hope an entire prison worth of men takes their sexual frustration out on them. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that one. Read on for a dissection of his argument, information about the guy and his misogynist pals, and how to help prevent this creep from taking his pro-rape views out on any women.
So, Yvette strongly agrees that there are circumstances where rape is justified. Undeterred by any notion of cruel and unusual punishment, she blatantly states that I deserve rape merely for expressing my opinion. Well, I am saying women deserve rape for actual violence against men enforced by cops, so my case is much stronger than hers, though one might reasonably argue that both are reprehensible.
He states repeatedly on his blog that women have value as sex objects and nothing more.
No, I state that women have the same value as men for any equal accomplishments unrelated to sex, but women have tremendous additional value as sex objects that men lack. This fundamental inequality is the crux of the matter and why rape is equality when everything else is equal.
Eivind Berge’s entire argument basically revolves around “well this psychiatrist guy wrote this article with a title that sounds like it supports my position so I’m right”.
Um, no, of course I knew sex was a female resource long before I read Baumeister. That fact is painfully obvious to any man trying to get laid or any honest observer of what goes on in the real world. I merely cite Baumeister for the convenience of those living under a rock or brainwashed by feminist social constructionist boilerplate, such as yourself.
Yet the psychologist who wrote the article does not even find rape justifiable.
So what? I am able to think for myself and have my own opinion. And he did include a disclaimer because he must have known his argument combined with egalitarian thinking leads to the conclusion that rape is justified.
Eivind Berge focuses entirely on heterosexual-heterosexual rape. Presumably, he thinks he also has a right to the bodies of lesbians whose “sexual worth” was never his to take. I am curious if he thinks male-male rape is rape.
Yes, male-male rape is rape, but it isn't justified because homosexuals are already equal. They can have sex anytime they want just like women can. I might be willing to leave lesbians out of this as well. Only the heterosexual context concerns me.
He believes rape is only rape if the victim, a woman, is resisting to the best of her ability. He does not believe violence, coercion, drugs, childhood innocence, etc, come into the equation. Consent is not necessary in his opinion. However, he doesn’t think it’s possible for a woman to rape a man – he argues this by saying that men would consent to any sex (why hello there double standard) and apparently ignoring the possibility that a man might not consent despite being aroused (Viagra, physical arousal vs. saying NO). This is important to keep in mind when it comes to his argument that women should be raped because, in setting a double standard when it comes to what is rape for a man and what is rape for a woman, he acknowledges that women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth.
I already answered how a woman might give up resistance and still legitimately consider herself raped (if such resistance most likely would get her killed or seriously injured). And how rape by drugs is possible if the drugs are administered against her will. The same definition of rape applies to children, and in fact even Norwegian law is not yet so corrupt that it considers it rape simply because a child's innocence is taken advantage of. That would be considered sexual abuse but not rape if the child went along with it. I do indeed think it's impossible for a woman to rape a man. The double standard is quite real and based on biology. And yes, sometimes "women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth," but they do so much less often than men with a much more limited number of partners. This profound difference is the problem, and a few loose women here and there do little to improve things for men. Sexual coercion is called for if we are to have equality -- and equality was the feminists' idea, remember?
His argument also apparently rests on a false definition of rape, judging by his other posts. Rape is not sexual intercourse where the woman is resisting to the best of her ability. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. That is the nearly universal definition, accepted by just about…everyone, and includes sexual intercourse where one party is coerced or unable to give real consent.
Nope, your definition of rape is only a very recent feminist corruption of justice, and even then it is most often not accepted by juries. Common law defined rape for hundreds of years as carnal knowledge of a woman, not one's wife, by force and against her will. Simple lack of consent does only make it rape according to the most feminist-corrupted jurisprudence. In fact, only ten years ago Norwegian law was aligned with my definition of rape, and a causal element of violence or coercion is still required unless the woman is unable to resist. However, that coercion can now be as mild as threatening to start a rumor about a woman, reporting her for a crime she has actually committed, or even a husband threatening divorce, so the Norwegian definition is now so corrupt that women deserve real rape for this alone, in my view. Until 2000, Norwegian women had to be threatened with serious violence in accordance with my definition. That year mens rea was abolished as well, so now women can get men convicted without even knowing that she didn't really want sex and no malicious intent whatsoever. And the penalty for this is more severe than for involuntary manslaughter. The law quite blatantly says a woman's vagina is worth more than her life, so it is better to drive drunk and kill her than to have drunken, willing sex with the same woman which she later regrets. This is also the year sex with an unconscious woman or a woman unable to resist (which means women can just say they were too drunk to consent) was upgraded from a sort of misdemeanor to "rape," punishable by over ten times as many years (up to 21). Feminist rape law reform has come a long way and is responsible for much of my seething hatred, but still has ways to go because juries often refuse to convict based on the new definition. The final solution will be to abolish the jury in rape trials, and they are working on that right now.
Women’s worth lying in their nether regions is, let’s make this clear, a social construct. Specifically, a social construct which was created by men, perpetuated by men, and is now being defended by men. The article which Eivind links to analyzes the current state of gender roles in most societies (Eivind happily ignores gender equal or matriarchal societies as they do not fit into his worldview), and Eivind uses the nice, authoritative sound of a psychologist’s findings to make his point sound stronger than it truly is. 
No, it isn't a social construct. Norway is now as close to an equal or matriarchal society as any known society ever was, and the same sex differences persist, as I posted evidence of recently.
Let’s get this straight: it’s not exactly a revelation that women’s bodies are traded for wealth. This is the general model for how society expects relationships to work. It is, however, just that: a model, a social construct. Male sexuality has no worth in society because those it is of no worth to those in power, ie men. Eivind, as a heterosexual male (aha! So that’s why his link specified heterosexual society) has no desire for cock. He is not willing to pay for it, or make any effort for it, and he would surely cry crocodile tears if it were forced upon him. Would he change his mind if the cock in question were attached to a wealthy business owner, and he were a single father in need of cash? Quite possibly. Does this mean Eivind’s only worth is as a sex object? After all, Eivind is just as capable of being valuable in other ways.
No, I wouldn't change my mind if the cock were attached to a wealthy business owner. Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn't a social construct. Unfortunately, most cocks are also disgusting to most women most of the time.
By equalizing economic worth, feminists are equalizing other forms of worth as well. As I’ll mention below, the slow increase of sexual harassment in the workplace with women as the perps and men as the victims greatly weakens Eivid’s argument.
I do not take sexual harassment seriously at all (it was invented by feminists as a tool to empower women and oppress men, criminalizing normal male behavior), and as I have made abundantly clear, women can never be "perps" in any kind of sex crime including forcible rape, because female sexuality is a good thing and any male recipient of a woman's sexual attention is only lucky. However, if the system rewards allegations of sexual harassment and, absurdly, takes men accusing women seriously as well, then it is hardly surprising that some men will try to exploit the system. In any case, only feminists and morons take them seriously as victims. The rest of us see through the bullshit and understand that these men are not alleging harassment because they feel sexually victimized by women.
It’s been well known for a while that women have begun to sexually harass men and make advances in the workplace towards men, abusing their higher economic power just as men have done the past thousand years or so. Why Eivind is not in the know remains unclear. What isn’t unclear is that when men’s economic power is reduced, women are happy to use their own economic power to get sex from men. This proves that when men women gain economic status instead of men, men are not left worthless—their social worth is simply different. In fact, if, as Eivind argues elsewhere on his blog, “men cannot not want sex, they will happily take anything”. If this is the case, perhaps Eivind should be celebrating the fact that economic equality leads to sexual equality and some insane woman might see him as worth anything.
This is simply gibberish. Women do not try to use their power to get sex from men. They use their power to reject more men than ever, and this is the problem. Economic equality leads to sexual inequality.
This is probably the most clearly misogyny-driven claim in Eivind Berge’s argument. The old model (of: society only recognizes women’s value as sex objects and prevents them from having any wealth or power) is being dismantled by the feminists Eivind hates so. In freeing up positions for women, feminists are ending the system of legal prostitution (ie: marriage) in which women had no choice but to give their bodies in exchange for the ability to have food on the table. We are in a period of transition: many women and men still expect women to trade their bodies for sex because it has only been a decade or two since those ideals started being challenged. At the same time, many don’t want that at all.
As the Kennair study shows, we are not in a period of transition. Liberated women will use their power to reject men. Either women must be economically disempowered again so they have to get married, or sexual coercion is necessary. Otherwise there will be a lot of frustrated and dangerous men.
Wealth represents (note: represents, not is, wealth is a social construct as well) access to resources that provide political power and a longer, happier life. Sex is an action resulting from biological lust, socially, it touches upon countless socially constructed meanings. To take wealth to the point where it harms a person is violence, but to deny wealth or power not to the point of harm is not violence. Rape is always violence.
Taking wealth from men is worse than rape reproductively speaking for all the men becoming evolutionary dead ends as a result. And when equality is enforced at gunpoint by the police, it is also quite literally violence. Of course, the threat of violence usually suffices, but such a threat is also all the violence you need for rape. Even more so by the feminist definition, which requires no violence at all and any kind of threat will do no matter how light. You really get hoist by your own petard here. If you want rape to be so loosely defined and still call it "always violence," then it doesn't take much for affirmative action to amount to violence, either.
This is the most obviously ludicrous claim, and where the argument truly falls apart. “Men get less sex as women get more money and power” is not only entirely unsupported by Eivind, only claimed, it’s obvious bullshit. Women have a sex drive.
Of course women have a sex drive, but it is normally very different than the male sex drive. The average man gets less sex as women get more money and power, because women prefer to reject betas and go for alphas when they are in a position to do so. I am not arguing in terms of absolutes, and admit exceptions, which is a concept you don't seem to understand:
The idea that women won’t put out at all as a result of their newfound wealth, however, is downright stupid.
Yes, and I never said such a thing. They put out less for men who are average and below, and that is where I am coming from.
If women are economically equal to men, and as a result are no longer forced to barter the only thing men feel they need from them, women will no longer barter their sexuality. The day men stop treating us as sexual objects is the day women stop treating men as blank checks. But men seem to be in no hurry to do so. It is feminists who are giving men increased social worth by making them more than a checkbook. But leave it to a libertarian to think only in terms of monetary value.
This is a complete non sequitur. Feminism takes away much of the leverage we had to obtain sex. You are either intellectually dishonest or very stupid if you think this gives men increased worth. We don't like to pay for sex and would prefer not to, but receptive women are just such a scarce resource that we often have to. Feminism makes female sexuality even scarcer because women can afford to be pickier and never have to sell sex out of necessity. Only the most desirable men get more sex under feminism, but they always had easy access to women. Everyone else gets less.

PUAs do sometimes successfully use the artifice of game to fool women about their value (e.g. refusing to pay for drinks, negs, etc.), but this deception will only work as long as PUAs are few or until women catch on.

First, let’s get something clear. Women are not stupid—on average, we’re as intelligent as any male, as tests over the last century have confirmed. Occasionally we are found to be a few points less intelligent, but that’s been disputed by men, and women have been found to have higher IQ’s at later stages of life.
Average IQ is not the whole story. While the mean IQ might be about the same for both men and women, the variability of male IQ is greater, meaning there are more men at both the high and low extremes. There are more male geniuses who accomplish great things (as well as more male idiots), and also men are more aggressive and have a different cognitive repertoire than women. So you naturally get different outcomes for the sexes.
Eivind also bases many of his claims on A Natural History of Rape—which is all fine and good except that it makes up half of his references and it is not held as a very reputable source.
The quote about Thornhill is a lie. For one thing, the sample size was 790, not 27:
doi:10.1016/0162-3095(90)90008-T

According to the hypothesis, mental pain is brought about by social tragedies in the lives of individuals and focuses the attention of individuals on the events surrounding the pain, promoting correction of the pain-causing events and their avoidance in the future. The hypothesis applied to rape victims proposes that in human evolutionary history raped females had increased fitness as a result of mental pain, because the pain forced them to focus attention on the fitness-reducing circumstances surrounding rape, which are discussed. Some of the hypothesis' predictions about the psychological pain of rape victims are examined using a data set of 790 rape victims in Philadelphia (USA) who were interviewed about their psychological traumatization within five days after the assault. The analyses indicate that, as predicted, a victim's age and marital status are proximate causes of the magnitude of psychological pain following rape. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more severely traumatized by rape than older women or girls and married women more than unmarried women. The results presented suggest that the psychology that regulates mental pain processes information about age and mateship status in the event of a woman's rape. 
Eivind Berge actually claims that when a white man rapes a woman, it’s a made up feminist statistic, but it’s not (and somehow worse) when non-whites do it.
No, I was just comparing the number of rape allegations, not saying how credible they are. The point is that women didn't even accuse a single white man of attacking and raping them in the street in those years, versus 41 non-white. This is the classical form of rape that fits my definition and most women agree is the worst, even though they now also can legally call it rape in a number of milder scenarios such as regretting drunken sex, etc. You have to believe that women report false rape close to 100% of the time to deny this trend, and not even any MRAs go that far.
Hypergamous? Yea, women had to be. As one commenter put it: "It strikes me that hypergamy can only occur in societies where there is a pronounced social inequality between sexes in the first place. ‘Marrying up’ is presumably an attempt to address that imbalance for some reason, possibly for the sake of children. Wouldn’t this imply that as the sexes become more equal in terms of status, money, power etc, the difference between the desirability of rich and poor men will decrease?"
It is becoming clear that women respond to equality by increasingly not marrying at all, or delaying marriage while sleeping around with the few men who actually have the status to be attractive to women. Betas get less sex with women when they are young and most desirable.
Affirmative action was not pushed through by "feminists." Affirmative action was pushed through the political sphere, which is overwhelmingly controlled by men (for example, in the US, only 17 out of 100 senators are female today). So you should really be angry with other men, not women.
The political sphere is not "overwhelmingly controlled by men" just because most senators are men. Whoever votes for these men has the power, and women are the majority of the electorate.
The final blow to Eivind Berge’s claims? It’s well acknowledged that the single largest factor in women’s choice of mates is the man’s natural body odor. Try taking a bath, Eivind.
Sure smell is important, but the study you link to also confirms female hypergamy: "These findings support previous results showing that body odor is a critical signal in female mate choice (Herz & Cahill, 1997). Also in accord with previous studies (Buss; Buss; Buss and Landolt), women gave higher ratings than men did to variables related to status and resource potential and men gave higher ratings to good looks (Buss, D.M., 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, pp. 1–49.). For men, the only factor to outrank good looks was the social factor, pleasantness."
And in a more humorous end, let’s point out another way in which Eivind Berge is wrong—here’s an example of a “free-sex” brothel opening in Norway where men and women are volunteering to have sex with strangers, for free. Kind of goes against everything he’s claimed, doesn’t it.
How naive can you get? That "free-sex brothel" was just a publicity stunt or hoax and isn't happening.

Oh, and everybody please be my guest and sign Yvette's petition against me. It will accomplish nothing.

131 comments:

john halder said...

haha, i didn't know they had this useless petition going on.
i signed it, and i left some nifty comments too!
so, yvette, predictably, wishes rape on you, but you suggesting rape makes you a 'monster'.
what's she then, an angel?
well, now they have a new bullshit 'crusade'. if it wasnt this, it would just be something else. instead of blaming men and attacking mra's. they'd be better served 'raising awareness' just ONCE, not to get drunk, get naked, then pass out at frat parties. women just dont DO the responsibility thing though.

Anonymous said...

John, that slime you exude with every post must have a more useful function than simply repelling women. Have you tried some of it out on the BP oil slick? Who knows, you could become a national hero, with all the pussy you can handle for ever more.

john halder said...

lmao!
i did NOT know there are 100's more petitions on that site!
here's some examples:
'impeach obama'
'stop exuecutions in belarus'
'stop boiling lobsters, save the lobsters!
( i'm not makin this up)
the funniest of em all:
'stop dog meat consumption in s korea'.
damn eivind, you are in some awesome company there!

now i knew women were naive morons, but this takes all the cake!
still didint see the petition to 'stop making false rape accusations'
where's that one at?
p.s, i signed your petition again, i HAD to eivind, i am morraly compelled too, but i left some more interesting comments to 'add more impact' haha!

namae nanka said...

Well written. I left some links at her blog since I didn't want to argue with her delusions or with any other women's. It's worthless to do so.

It's hilarious how she mentions the number of senators as an argument, while being oblivious to the fact that the overwhelming number of issues concerned with the sex of the voter are women's issues.
The number of measures taken to improve women's conditions in the society far outweigh any measures taken for men.

Then she frames it as men in power being the culprit for doing so. LOL

But if they weren't doing so then they would simply be accused of continuing the "oppression" that men have wreaked upon women for "thousand of years".

Tch it gets so funny that it stops being funny anymore.Sexual frustration is better than hearing such babble.

Anonymous said...

And sexual frustration ye shall have. Women sense that you don't respect them and consider them below males, it is repelling. You will not be loved as long as you are like this. And the longer it drags out, the harder it will be to find a loving woman.

john halder said...

haha! so, all a man has to due,is, if he's NOT wealthy/ famous, be 'nice' and 'respectful' huh?
i think weve established REPEATEDLY, that women don't like 'nice'.( just have to read my blog for some examples)

and it's women,- breaking news!! that don't respect men.

and the concept of love? that's a whole nother can o'worms.chemical imbalance, lol.
it exists in movies, songs, really it's just lust/attraction.

it never lasts, it's not supposed to.
as i've already mentioned many times before-
foreign women only-

philipina women, are NOT just attracted to & respect american men. they respect their own male countrymen.

Anonymous said...

haha! so, all a man has to due,is, if he's NOT wealthy/ famous, be 'nice' and 'respectful' huh?
i think weve established REPEATEDLY, that women don't like 'nice'.


No, women don't like you, for reasons that aren't especially hard to grasp.

And I absolutely agree: if you're not wealthy or famous, being nice and respectful is a pretty good way forward - my marriage is overwhelmingly built on a bedrock of mutual respect. But I also think that possibly the most crucial ingredient in a successful long-term relationship is a similar sense of humour and above all a mutual willingness to laugh at yourselves.

Sadly, this last bit is where many relationships founder, because people are either too insecure or too arrogant to admit to their failings. But it's central to just about every truly successful relationship that I've had, and also those of most of my friends.

Anonymous said...

Yes, they (we) do want nice and respectful. Stop buying into the MRA stereotype that women only fall for "bad boys", reckless alphas and thugs. Or serial killers and rapists. Don't extrapolate those cases on all women. The new woman wants an understanding male.

The philipina women respect their men because they support them financially. They are the main breadwinners and women depend on them. That's where a lot of respect stems from, they respect their wallet, the fact that they provide for their livelihood.

But Western men are respected for who they are as men.

Anonymous said...

>And I absolutely agree: if you're not wealthy or famous,

Recognizes hypergamy. Disregards everything else about it and and instead it overlays its own delusions upon reality.

This is how the majority of humans function.

Imagine if one were to tell it that human females are parasites. Ugh.

Where's nuclear holocaust when you need one.
I just want to see the flash and i'd be in my own personal heaven for an instant.

john halder said...

'the new woman wants an understanding male'


yea, as in, you want some pussy tonight? you understand i want a new gold watch then?

john halder said...

funny how you mention nuclear holocaust.one of my favorite movies in the last few years was 'the road'

not only am i NOT in the slightest bit scared of nuclear war, if i had the launch buttons in front of me, i'd press em ALL.

too many problems now, women are gold diggers, america is an awful lie, industrial revolution and greed has badly hurt the enviroment. the seas will all be dead before the end of this century

you can't turn a living planet into a machine planet.

and you've got all these tea party/republican MORONS that are actually going to vote?! and really believe putting in shit like palin. romney, religious asswipe huckabee will make things better? really?

where it all went wrong concerning women in this country: allowing them to vote, plain and simple. they outnumber men, so THEY control the voting bloc. REAL bad move.
that's how they got all this power.and WHO do women vote for/ support? palin, bachmann,sharon angle
crazy AND stupid= trouble

Anonymous said...

John, there are tribes along the furthest reaches of the Amazon as yet untouched by civilisation who have already realised why it is that you have extreme difficulty attracting women.

Unfortunately, a wholesale personality transplant is what's really required, which could get quite expensive. Not to mention the possible side-effects from what is still a highly experimental procedure.

john halder said...

and, ONCE again, let me clarify this for you.

i'm NOT trying to attract ANY female.

you assume and presume too much.
i despise 'women'.

they are nothing but leeches,and compulsive liars.

clear enough for ya?

don't be pissed off just because i have you 'ladies' totally, completely figured out.

it was very easy to do. not in any way difficult.

john halder said...

speaking of leeches, as reported on the news, and on my blog, al gore is a 'sexual predator' and 'pervert' according to a brand new gold digger on the scene who tried and failed to sell her fake 'assault'? story to the national enquirer.
she ADMITS al didnt rape her, but had to undergo 'months of physical therapy' to 'recover'

parasites indeed!

emotionally traumatized said...

I have the most incredible girlfriend story. From Norway. Don't have time to go into it now, really, but after having been sweethearts, so to say, i.e. after it was over, I found out a lot about her.

She had pressed false rape charges against the same guy I took her from, well kinda sorta, 2 years later, and that she also left me for again. The police saw through it, and charged her (siktelse), trying to get her convicted (tiltale). They didn't quite make it, as she made it a lot harder for the DA when she used her pussy on the guy she was involved in this police case with, to get him to drop the charges. Now, this is one VERY sexy/attractive woman, but with almost zero morals. He caves and withdrew his filed charges (also for extortion, as she had made it clear she would accuse him of rape, unless he paid her 50-60.000 NOK so she could get a boob job).

She has later filed charges against both me and him many times. Some few times the police took her seriously. That was in Oslo, where all the feminists are and rule. Also one court (of appeals) in Bergen, which made one laughable ruling (not conviction). Other than that, her charges are dropped by the polic within a day or two, mostly, as they are obviously ridiculous.

I got to have real sex with her once. That's all. I spent 15-20.000 on her, all in all, wining and dining. Also, after the sex, she started asking frequently for money to her account - "just until I get a job". I was a poor student, but very much in love (and didn't know about her murky past then), so I caved - it was, after all, a loan. Or so I thought.

One day she summarily dumped me via sms. That was after she had used me every way possible, and was installed in Oslo - I had been her bridgehead there from the small town where the police didn't like her games, and had tried to get her convicted on false rape charges.

When I called her after the sms, she first didn't answer. After the first few call, she picked up and just spat out that she was not interested, and if I called again, she'd go to the police.

That was after a relationship of 3-4 months, where she, a welfare client, got all I mentioned above from me, and lots of affection, hours and hours of conversations etc etc. But didn't matter, now she was back to her mediterranean lover, same guy she had filed charges of rape against earlier, and he had left his wife and two kids in the smaller city, to come to Oslo and be her lover there. I was dirt to her, unnecessary noise.

To this day, if I come across her, she takes on an arrogant pose, doesn't say hi. Looks super attractive still, although 30, very gold digger-ish, high heels, pink skirts, bleached platinum blonde hair, super attractive. If I manage to get a word in edge-wise about the money, she just yells, with crazy eyes, "I owe you nothing!".

emotionally traumatized said...

(part 2 of 2) Of course not. I was only a very poor student, giving her whatever little money I had, because she had asked for it and said it was only until she got a job... (And get a job she did, at a kindergarten, but she left within a month, as usual, as she can never fit in with everyday people, and doesn't respect any authority.)

But what's so special about all this? Well, perhaps that many of the same women who support equality between the sexes, and feminism, support HER when they hear the story. And that one feminist police lawyer in Oslo, who took the case of sms-es and love letters to court, where they resolutely lost ( I had all three judges vote in my favour, with no reservations whatsoever). Same happened in city court in Bergen, where the chief judge not only threw out a case from her, but awarded me unusual coverage of lawyer fees. I'm not sure how much all the police and court drama this eternal welfare client (although exquisitely gorgeous) has caused, may have cost the Norwegian state, but lawyers I know estimate it in the hundreds of thousands. That comes in addition to her being a known home-wrecker, a filer of false rape charges, a welfare client on and off for at least 12 years, a heart breaker, a pathological liar and most likely complete useless as a potential mother (I hope she never has a kid, unless the father is extraordinarily conscientous, wise, loving and caring).


She is also a really big fan of Sex and the City, Britney Spears and all such things. Such women do exist, quite a lot of them, in fact. The more beautiful and feminine, the more likely to not have much knowledge, solid personality, or morals. (There are plenty of beautiful Norwegian women in university also, especially business school and law school, but they are rarely as feminine as these women I am describing.)

Now, take this story for what you want, but it's a real one. Don't have time to write much more now - World Cup game on rather soon etc, but will be back later to clarify etc if necessary, i.e. if there are any questions.

Last thought, though - I got information she may have been abused/molested by her CEO father, in their upper middle class home, when she was a child and a ballet dancer. Most things suggest there is something to this story. I didn't have it from her. But it makes sense, and fits in with a pattern of Cluster B personality disorder. She may be on some crusade against men, that she herself is not even fully aware of. That is, I don't think she knows quite how she differs from most women, in morality and emotions etc. (Personality disordered people rarely do.) In any regard, what is most shocking about this experience, is not that a damaged woman can act in such ways - it's who supports her, knowing nothing about her background, just because she is a woman. So she seems to be, in the eyes of many feminists etc, the natural victim, and entitled to act the way she does etc. Same with the feminist, male police attorney, doing her the disfavour of excusing her and taking her case to court, only to lose resolutely.

(But of course, I was traumatized for months and months over that, but that probably doesn't count, because as a male person, I am probably not supposed to have emotions as refined as the vulnerabilities of a female person, and am of course an aggressor, never a victim, no matter what.. Or so it seems. There are women who do think otherwise, though. Plenty of them, and also within the police. One of the judges was a woman, as well. But still, my experience shows that some parts of police and the court system are feminist, and that you can never fully trust the outcomes of random cases filed by women. It can all come down to irrational factors.. More about that later, perhaps.)

emotionally traumatized said...

Yikes.. Eivind, seems this blog format is technically tricky.. (I'm mostly just used to Facebook these days.. ) I get error messages and told to post again, because it's too long and so on.. So I do, and the result is a mess, and multiple postings of part of the same posts. Perhaps I'll get the hang of it, eventually..

Seems though that the last two posts - at 7:15 and 7:16 pm respectively - may be deleted. Not something that I can do, though.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the Blogger comment system is awful. I deleted those two posts for you. Also considering installing Disqus to manage comments better. I really hate the limit on message size as well as the inability to edit comments.

Thanks for sharing that story. I am not surprised at all, since when you look closely into most rape allegations, they are completely ridiculous. Most are soon dropped, but even the ones that do go to court here are usually based on a corrupt feminist definition of rape which means the men are innocent even if the woman is telling the truth. I have attended a rape trial and seen with my own eyes how easily a woman can regret sex and get men convicted simply on the basis of being drunk. When actual court cases are so absurd, I can imagine how ridiculous those the police are forced to drop must be. Yet every accusation (times ten) is counted as a "rape" in feminist statistics, and political pressure is focused squarely on boosting the conviction rate, even if they have to abolish the jury and replace it with professional feminist judges to accomplish this. Somehow I doubt even that will get men to wake up and rebel against feminism.

I see Yvette has replied with more feckless verbiage, so I need to prepare a follow-up response and will do so over the weekend.

john halder said...

youre right. men will never unite against this.
that is obvious.
even on much larger issues,u.s war against the world, the mind blowing wealth gap. people wont unite.
i CANNOT win not ONE person over.
i've never 'won' any debate.
if yvette believes men can be raped,lol, well, you'll never convince her otherwise.
most importantly, no means no! even if its your unconscious girlfriend, haha.
and if these batshits want to believe every 1 in 3, 4, whatever are raped.
the facts thrown in their faces dont change shit.
the pentagon/military industrial complex has completely WON.
women will win.
what's going to stop it?

Anonymous said...

i CANNOT win not ONE person over.
i've never 'won' any debate.


I'm stunned by this. Absolutely stunned.

I have to say that you've been an absolute role model to me. Your calm, reasoned analyses, absolute refusal to resort to crude generalisations or hysterical hyperbole, and your all too evident willingness to consider every possible side to a situation before reaching your own opinion are the sort of thing that debating championships are normally made of.

john halder said...

well, considering that the ONLY responses i receive,on my blog, on eivinds, and yvettes, etc ,etc ,etc
from women are lame personal attacks.
i think i do pretty well.
women have no answers to the links that i and so many others have provided to unbiased, independent, impartial studies that totally debunk 1 in every 4 raped, and that illustrate 50% of you ladies rape claims are false.

not QUITE the 2% you've been taught to believe is it?

i have posted these links on my blog under: wave of false rape claims in orlando fla.

i also posted them on yvettes blog, under the thread title of 'rape culture, somethin somethin, blah blah.

click on those links, read the reports then send off personal attacks to them, lol.

john halder said...

ive got a great book for all you womyn to read!
check out:
legalizing misandry: from public shame to systemic discrmination against men.

and: spreading misandry: the teaching of contempt for men in popular culture.
authors paul nathanson, katherine young.

i bet they didnt mention this book in your 'women studies'.

also: the myth of male power, warren farell.

and to think, most of you gurls believe, (or youre just lying) misandry doesnt exist! and it's somehow still a patriarchy!

Anonymous said...

There is not as much misandry in the culture as the MRAs claim. What they call misandry, is just a critical view at the true nature of men. Give real examples of misandry - real hatred against men for being men! There are very few examples of misandry in today's culture. Most of what you are refering to cannot be termed as "hatred".

On date rape - it is amoral to use a woman while she's intoxicated. Any man who has a heart or any conscience and who has any morals would not touch a woman. It is an asshole thing to do. This has happened to me (actually the guy put some substance in my drink). Even though I never complained to anyone, I have ended up hating and despising those couple of men who did it. The first man wanted to have me as his girlfriend and forced himself on me. How can a person not understand that I don't desire them. I was kind and polite to him - that's how he paid for my kindness! The other one was a friend of mine. We talked a lot but he never made any advances, just was friendly. When we got wasted, I started crying really hard, and was feeling terrible. Instead of comforting me, he took me to bed and we had sex. I wasn't traumatized emotionally, but I felt only deepest hatred and derision for him afterwards, because he had betrayed our friendship and used me in a vulnerable moment! I never spoke to him once again! He kept messaging and writing me, trying to be friendly again, but I never replied to him. He will never regain my respect or friendship, his value has completely dropped in my eyes. I never told him how I felt about the whole thing, and I should have - I know he would be very ashamed. It was amoral on his behalf and will never be forgiven. Then you wonder why we have anger and hatred against some men. Don't be surprised - you have earned it with your own attitude and actions.

Anonymous said...

Warren Farrel was a feminist btw, and he is not an MRA. He's a gender equalist.

Anonymous said...

Er.. it still IS a partiarchy. 90% of power is in men's hands. Most of world's resources are also in men's hands. Men make the majority of political and financial decisions in international politics. We see today what the result of that has been.

Anonymous said...

To the emotionally traumatized: It is unfortunate that you fell in love with a gold digger. You can probably be excused because you must have been very young and it is wrong to screw up a young man. But on the other hand, those men that fall for gold diggers.. have they no common sense? What do they expect? Yes, men want women that are over glamorized, "feminine" and who look like porno actresses. Yet they don't realize that you have to PAY for such a woman's company and affection. Such a woman is not a norm and does not come with equal terms - she is always high maintanence because she has invested in her looks. That doesn't come for free. If you want a glamorized, super sexy woman, you have to pay for her presence. Don't complain that you had to spend money, it was you who desired a woman that was out of your league and who looked like a prostitute. The porno culture works against men themselves - normal women are not "feminine" enough for men anymore. :) Too bad for men.

She might have some mental problems though, if she sees her only value in her sex appeal. But this is the message that the men have taught her. Many men show us every day what they want - a prostitute, a porno model. But those usually have a price tag. The more glamorous, the higher the price.

Anonymous said...

I mean that's exactly what you do to us... pump and dump. So she did the same. Pump and dumped you.

Eivind Berge said...

The other one was a friend of mine. We talked a lot but he never made any advances, just was friendly. When we got wasted, I started crying really hard, and was feeling terrible. Instead of comforting me, he took me to bed and we had sex.

You are really naive if you expect anything else and think men and women can be friends without sex first. A male "friend" is just looking for that vulnerable moment, thinking about sex all along. It is really pathetic to pretend to be just friends with women and I don't do it, but he is no rapist. I also seriously doubt that other guy put something in your drink, as this has been shown to be a big myth -- Doctors tested 75 women who claimed their drinks had been spiked by date rape drugs, not one tested positive. You got drunk, had sex and regret it. The fact that you can cry rape and the police and justice system will make every effort to convict these men for "rape" is true misandry.

Eivind Berge said...

Warren Farrel was a feminist btw, and he is not an MRA. He's a gender equalist.

Yes. He is a feminist and has some really unrealistic ideas about equality being possible, but is more honest than most feminists. If even a feminist can admit male power is a myth, why do you still claim we have a patriarchy?

Anonymous said...

I didn't say it was rape, it was date rape. I don't really consider it rape, as I wasn't traumatized by it. Doesn't mean that another woman wouldn't be. I just view it as an asshole thing to do, esp., coming from a guy who I considered a friend but who in fact didn't respect me. I mean, I didn't take anything from him at all. I wouldn't take his money while he was drunk or sleeping, I wouldn't steal anything from him or break stuff in his apartment. Or invade his private space. I respected the person, now why does he think he can take something from me which I didn't willfully grant him.

I knew the other guy was interested in me too. I'm not complaining against him or anything. I just don't talk to him anymore and don't respect him. I should have told him what I think about the situation, when he came back and tried talking to me over and over again. I'm sure he would be ashamed if I told him what I think about the whole thing. Like I said, it's no big deal for me (I'm able to protect myself), it's just that we will not talk anymore and there will be no respect for an otherwise ok guy.

The other guy was a doctor himself. And there is no justification whatsoever to walk into another person's room, get into their bed, bug them, push themselves over them, try to pin them to the bed, etc etc, if they are in fact protesting. There is no excuse for that. And like I said, I care so little about his advances that I could only spit in his face the next day and quit talking to him (even though he was begging me to be his girlfriend).

I do not spend time with men anymore like I used to before these two cases. I don't trust many of them, don't take drinks with them anymore (unless it's a really nice man). I don't spend time with them anymore. I do not invite men over to my place unless they are themselves very desired by me and I am 100% sure that I want to sleep with them. Of course, I dress quite conservatively, even though I never dressed provocatively in the first place. I also wear much less makeup.

Anonymous said...

I kinda like Warren Farrel.
Yes, some of the things he says are unrealistic (such as mating habits). But a lot of the stuff is ok.

I don't agree that all or even most men transfer their resources to women and children (like they should preferably through marriage). They keep a lot of resources to themselves (which they have partly gained through undervalued female labor). Also, the political decisions are made predominantly by men. I'm not saying that all political decisions are bad, it's just that they are predominantly in men's hands. Even in the West.

S.

Anonymous said...

You are really naive if you expect anything else and think men and women can be friends without sex first.

Don't be absurd. I'm male, many of my best friends are female (including my two closest friends apart from my wife) and the overwhelming majority of those relationships are entirely platonic - which is just the way we like it.

One of my friends came onto me one night when very drunk, but I rebuffed her because we were both in good relationships at the time and I thought this would cause more trouble than a quick drunken fumble could possibly be worth. She rang me the next day to thank me, we've never spoken about it since, and she remains a close friend nearly twenty years on. In fact, I saw her only last week.

A male "friend" is just looking for that vulnerable moment, thinking about sex all along.

That comment says far more about your own hang-ups than anything else. I have no sexual interest in most of my female friends, and I suspect the same is true vice versa. The crucial difference between you and me is that I get plenty of regular sex, so I don't have to regard every other woman as a possible conquest.

It is really pathetic to pretend to be just friends with women and I don't do it,

I'm sure you don't, but I suspect your lack of female companionship isn't entirely because you're remaining true to these principles.

emotionally traumatized said...

It would be nice if these anonymous people could make some kind of name - or else it's hard to tell them apart!

"Yes, men want women that are over glamorized, "feminine" and who look like porno actresses. Yet they don't realize that you have to PAY for such a woman's company and affection. Such a woman is not a norm and does not come with equal terms - she is always high maintanence because she has invested in her looks. That doesn't come for free. If you want a glamorized, super sexy woman, you have to pay for her presence. Don't complain that you had to spend money, it was you who desired a woman that was out of your league and who looked like a prostitute. The porno culture works against men themselves - normal women are not "feminine" enough for men anymore. :) Too bad for men"

Who says she's out of my league? She fell for me and we were in an actual relationship. It seems you are not responding to me, but interpreting lots of things into what I've written, but that are based on your own experiences, and partly on your own mental problems, as witnessed both in how you let it slip through that you have an objectifying view of men, and that you are unable to view men as emotional equals. Further witnessed here:

"I mean that's exactly what you do to us... pump and dump. So she did the same. Pump and dumped you."

Ehr.. "What you do to us"? I think you shouldn't even be on this page reading and commenting - you have issues, and ought to spend your time on getting back into a harmonized view of humanity, and not your dualism and man-hatred. You have rendered your entire body of comments absolutely void, as they come from a person who has an agenda, and who abuses comment sections of web-sites in order to make herself feel better, and to create the illusion that she is regaining control of her life.

Also, I only created the name "emotionally traumatized" so that I would be recognizable, and that people can tell my posts apart. I am a normal person, and I am not a dualist. I don't buy into feminism or masculinism, as those are dualist schools of thought. I do acknowledge though that in *Norway*, where I live, there is too much feminism, and so, for the time being, MRAs need support - just for the sake of balance.

A side note: Bergen, the city where Eivind lives, saw a world famous court case where a woman was indeed convicted for raping a man. It's funny how I haven't seen that mentioned on this blog. Perhaps Eivind lived in the US at the time, and is unaware of the case?

Also, if you are not responsible for all of the "anonymous" posts in this thread, I wouldn't know, as you've done nothing to identify yourself. How about calling yourself "manhater", or "I need to feel in control again", or even "pump and dump, ftw!". I can also recommend "an eye for an eye", or "I have a distorted view of men, and am here to prove it". Or for an as simple and accurate version as posibble: "that objectifying, dualist and reductionist chick".

One last thought, btw: I would not advocate rape. I see rape as all others do: If it happens to someone I don't know, who cares - we know nothing about the story and the allegations. We have no choice but to trust the police and the courts, and so it paves the way for both distrust and ennui whenever the police or the courts of justice show signs of bad judgements. On the other hand, if some guy raped a woman I know and trust, I'd shun him. If someone raped the ex of mine I talked about, it's possible I'd lose control and punch him. If I came across a rape in action, even if both were total strangers, I would intervene + call the cops.

emotionally traumatized said...

On the other hand: If *I* raped my ex, it would probably be ok, as she owes me money, raped me emotionally etc (by smearing my name with the police and in the courts system - perhaps she has no regard for that, as her own name was already smeared, over the false rape accusation, but that does not make it ok) and feels she has won - I'd only be balancing the books. Also important here is that we've already had sex (initiated by her, not me), and she might even enjoy it, once we got going. I know I am certainly under her skin, as it is.

If another guy who raped her, had the same history with her as I did, I'd not get involved at all - I wouldn't pass judgement, or shun him.

(FTR, I have no plans to rape her, and would never consciously proceed to do so. I am modifying what I wrote in the previous post, as very few statements are without reservations.)

This has got nothing to do with gender. It's the same as male-to-male violence. If some gy fucked me over in some way, making me secretly want to beat him senseless, and some other guy he did the same thing to does just that - same situation.

(Which brings me to the point of the act of rape being overhyped insanely. Some idiots here in Norway - male politicians, of course, as they are in the business of cozying up to the feminist fractions of their own, socialist political parties - are calling it "near murder". I have no idea where they are taking that from. I don't know that there is a difference between an average rape, and the act of smashing a guy's face, to the point where it'll never be the same again. The woman may have no visible scars. If so, the act of smashing a guy's face seems worse. It's important to note that I am talking about adults here, though. Molesting defenseless minors, or people with disabilities, is beyond compare, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone reacts to that, whereas with rape allegations, both women and men are often neutral, and wait for more facts or evidence to appear. I feel quite sure that most normal adults do not get emotionally worked up when reading about rape allegations in the news - and that definitely includes most women. In fact, in Norway, research has found that if sorting by gender, female judges (both judicial and civil, court-appointed ones) are harder on alleged female rape victims, scrutinizing markedly the behaviour, clothes and personal history of the alleged female victim, than men are. Since Norwegians are not biologically or culturally different to North Americans, it's likely that it's the same in the US.)

Btw, if you are the same anonymous who shared personal experiences of date rape above, you are wildly naive. Do not spend time being close to men you, as you say, are not attracted to. No average man spends time in private with a woman he's not sexually attracted to. By ignoring one of those guys attempts to get back in touch with you, you are being a sanctimonious asshole, and passive-aggressive. You should spend time to study interpersonal communication, and get to terms with the situation, so that you'll be able to communicate with him again, like an adult. You are not fully mature.

john halder said...

yea,and ironically, I'M the one thats been accused of typing away anonymously.
the intenet doesnt make people smarter.

in that train o' thought,
since , as you women keep
on insisting, there's millions of rapists out there-

(you cant have the firm belief of 1 in every 4 women raped, and NOT believe theres millions of us men out there raping like mad)

instead of 'petitions' and pleas to me about how only us MEN can stop rape.

WHY dont you just arm yourselves??

if millions of women were running around raping men, lol. I would be WELL armed.

even women can master this rather simple device.

the reasons you wont: you know its all bullshit
and, you'd HAVE to give up playing the 'victim' role.

plus, the biggest reason, as has been proven, with 50% of all rapes being made up fables, and 48% of the rest being date/boyfriend regret sex 'rape'. youd be shooting your lovers a LOT.

REAL rape, from a total stranger, is so rare, carrying a gun around waiting and hoping for that day to come would be a waste of time.

emotionally traumatized said...

Btw, seems there's a male asshole commentator among the "anonymous" trolls also, as witnessed here:

Evind: "A male "friend" is just looking for that vulnerable moment, thinking about sex all along."

Male comments section troll: "That comment says far more about your own hang-ups than anything else. I have no sexual interest in most of my female friends, and I suspect the same is true vice versa. The crucial difference between you and me is that I get plenty of regular sex, so I don't have to regard every other woman as a possible conquest."

This is the type of person who suffers from inadequacies, and who needs to find blogs or forums to comment in, where he can make himself feel better than others. Much the same as the female commentator my two posts above were in reply to.

Of course, if one gets a lot of sex elsewhere, one may not bother having it from a female friend. But it's kind of a strange relationship he must have with his sexual partner, where the guy can have close female friends on the side. In Norway, few women accept that from their male partner. It's only natural that they suspect he is emotionally and sexually invested in her.

Same goes when men hear from their female partner that she is meeting one on one with male friends.

People who don't get this, are too liberal-minded for their own good. While I think their POVs are cute and endearing, they should be made aware, gently or not, that they are indeed out of contact with the reality most people operate within - and so shouldn't generalize towards others, as they clearly are in the minority. When they still choose to do so, I have no problem with calling them out as inadequate people who visit comments sections to pump themselves up, like this male troll just did, there. I find it rather impressive how Eivind keeps replying rationally and kindly to such individuals. He could always delete ridiculous or otherwise sub-par comments, but he doesn't, and he replies cordially, and with a respect that they don't show him. It's almost strange - and at the very least remarkable.

emotionally traumatized said...

And one last thing, at this time: From reading the comments of many women in the blog here, and in the insanely long comments section over on PZ Myers' blogpost about Eivind, I have no doubt in my mind that many of you would be potential rapists and/or brutes (perpetrators of violent crimes in general), if you were born with the penetrating sexual organ, and the superior muscle power.

Which once again takes me back to my baseline view, which is that this has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with the human condition - human nature. I think Eivind is a very interesting and rational blogger, but I've been wondering whether he gives the feminists too much credit - by accepting their distorted, dualist view of the world as the norm. I don't. There's plenty of reason to be aware of the phenomenon of feminism though, not least in Norway and Sweden (two of the most feminist countries in the world, considering how much feminism shapes policies), and to conscious about how it contributes to increased anomy* in society.

* a sociological term

I just won't, for my own part, let that crooked thinking (feminism) influence my enjoyment of life, or how I view society and people in general. I see it as a social disease, much as with a lot of other -isms (communism, capitalism, liberalism - not the liberals, but the liberalists, etc etc.)

And to return to the start of this post: Looking at contributions in comments sections only, it would seem to me that men are actually the gentler gender - if we were to try and quantify and extrapolate just from the comments of those who choose to participate - and that Eivind is among them. Astonishingly many women (and some male trolls as well) wish rape upon Eivind. Both imprisonment, and eternal rape, it seems. This comes across as worse than anything Eivind has written - and yet, these contributors seem to think that *they* are the morally superior ones. Isn't that rich?

Anonymous said...

Btw, seems there's a male asshole commentator among the "anonymous" trolls also, as witnessed here:

And we kick off with the ad hominem abuse right from the start!  Classy.

This is the type of person who suffers from inadequacies, and who needs to find blogs or forums to comment in, where he can make himself feel better than others. Much the same as the female commentator my two posts above were in reply to.

So first the verbal abuse, then the reductionist psychologising, based on one single post - and before you actually tackle any of its substance.  

Of course, if one gets a lot of sex elsewhere, one may not bother having it from a female friend. But it's kind of a strange relationship he must have with his sexual partner, where the guy can have close female friends on the side. In Norway, few women accept that from their male partner. It's only natural that they suspect he is emotionally and sexually invested in her. 

I don't think it's strange at all.  My wife totally trusts me, and vice versa, for reasons encapsulated by Paul Newman's famous comment "why go out for a hamburger when you can have steak at home?"  And we both know that one of the reasons why our sex life is so great is that both of us are genuinely interested in the opposite sex as people: our sex life is as much conversational and analytical as it is physical  It's when you reduce people entirely to their physical attributes or, in extremis, their genitalia, that the problems start.  

People who don't get this, are too liberal-minded for their own good. While I think their POVs are cute and endearing, they should be made aware, gently or not, that they are indeed out of contact with the reality most people operate within - and so shouldn't generalize towards others, as they clearly are in the minority.

Oh, I have no doubt that I'm in the minority, but it's a minority that I'm very happy to be part of.  But if you read the post that I was responding to, I wasn't the one making generalisations - it was Eivind who made the blanket statement that it's impossible for men and women to be "just friends", which is simply not true.  It may not be true in his own personal experience, but by his own admission he's so utterly obsessed with sex that he can't get the notion out of his mind.  But people who've got over these essentially adolescent hang-ups feel somewhat differently - and, again in my experience, are generally far happier, more rounded people.  

When they still choose to do so, I have no problem with calling them out as inadequate people who visit comments sections to pump themselves up, like this male troll just did, there. I find it rather impressive how Eivind keeps replying rationally and kindly to such individuals. He could always delete ridiculous or otherwise sub-par comments, but he doesn't, and he replies cordially, and with a respect that they don't show him. It's almost strange - and at the very least remarkable.

So we've had ad hominem abuse, reductionist psychologising, patronising dismissal ("cute and endearing, but...") and now we've come full circle and are back to the ad hominem abuse again.  I trust you'll note that despite the fact that I'm apparently the troll round here, I've refrained from doing the same in return?  And what does that tell you about the security of our respective convictions?

emotionally traumatized said...

Are you not supposed to be an American citizen? Or are you a Norwegian? If the former, why would you visit the blog of a person you despise, on 4th of July?

As for the rest of your post, you failed to address the issue that you are in the minority, and therefore should not go around generalizing about stuff as if your attitude held primacy.

As for the rest of your comments, they are null and void to me - unless you demonstrated willingness to employ the same scrutiny towards people who agree with Eivind and disagree with you, which I'm sure you don't. Thus you are just another person who loves to go into trench warfare. I also wonder, if your sexlife with your wife is so great, and you have many female friends to tend to as well, why you wish to spend time in a blog like this one. It's not as if your posts will matter, neither in the big scheme of things, nor for anybody debating and reading here. So why are you here?

And if you're gonna stick around, why not make a handle, like I did, so that people can regognize you, and separate you from the other anonymous trolls? How can your posts matter to anyone, if you can't even be bothered to do that?

Lastly, I'm happy that you seem to aspire to be the champion of high debating standards around here. I look forward to reading your future posts, in order to see how well they stand up to your ideals as expressed. Hopefully it'll be a pleasure, and you won't make me waste calories on pointing out to you that you are a hypocrite.

emotionally traumatized said...

The above should read:

people who *disagree* with Eivind, and agree with you

Not the other way around, as it stands, obviously.

The point is that you will likely not point out ad hominems etc of people who are on your side, meaning you are just another run-of-the-mill kinda person who enjoys trench warfare, is partisan, and as such will not contribute to a greater understanding. It could also become tiring after a while to read about how great your sexlife with your wife is, if you continue to push that point, and how you two trust each other totally. I find it kind of astonishing that mature people can write such things. I mean, you may speak for yourself, and tell us that you trust your wife 100%, but it's silly on its face when you pretend to speak for her. You are not inside her mind. And what the future holds, none of us know. (It could indeed be that you both maintain close relations to people from the other sex, as you both subconsciously are unsure about the future of your own relationship.)

Which actually makes me think about something that irks me with the posts I've read from you so far: Who are you really trying to convince? Other people - as in complete strangers online - or, in fact, yourself? Are you here writing in order to feel better about yourself, how superior you are and how fantastic your life is? Or is your quest one of wishing to save Eivind's soul? You don't necessarily have to answer that, as they are rhetorical questions as much as anything else - I mean, c'mon, what reason have you given me to believe that you are actually being fully authentic, straight-forward and honest?

And again, please do us the favour of making a handle for yourself, if you plan on sticking around. Imagine if everyone in the comments sections were posting like you - as "anonymous", all the time.

Anonymous said...

Dear emo,

You are over analyzing and mixing all things up. I absolutely do not hate men, quite the opposite. I simply suggested that men who go after overglamorized females should be aware that they are high maintanence and will demand some real funds.

And speaking of emotional and physical scars.. do you know what the vikings used to do to rapists? They put a hook in the rapists chest and tossed him off the cliff so that "he would know what it feels like to have your heart broken". That's from the ancient Germanic penal code.

the woman

Anonymous said...

And also - don't men benefit from gender equal policies in Norway? They can have shared custody and they can also enjouy various identities, unlike in the States and other parts of the world where men are viewed solely as the providers.

the woman

Eivind Berge said...

That comment says far more about your own hang-ups than anything else. I have no sexual interest in most of my female friends, and I suspect the same is true vice versa.

Nah, it's not just my hang-up. Evolutionary psychologists agree. David Buss reached the same conclusion: "Can men and women be just friends? The answer appears to depend on the sex of the person you ask." This is also the basis of ladder theory. Women have a friends ladder and a separate, real ladder for potential lovers, while men have just one ladder. Normal men only make a distinction between how much we want to fuck each woman we know, not between platonic friends and women we are interested in.

At the very least women would have to follow the sequence outlined in Chekhov’s Uncle Vanja: “A woman can become a man’s friend only in this sequence: first an acquaintance, then a mistress, and then a friend.” Only after sex is true platonic friendship possible between a woman and a man, and even then it is problematic as long as the man still wants sex.

De Selby said...

Are you not supposed to be an American citizen? Or are you a Norwegian? If the former, why would you visit the blog of a person you despise, on 4th of July?

It's sorely tempting merely to highlight all the many, many factual errors and wildly off-beam assumptions peppering your last two posts, but we'd be here all day and it's a pretty futile exercise - almost as futile as trying to construct a convincing psychological portrait of someone while knowing perfectly well that 90% of it will unavoidably be based on pure guesswork.   And the guesswork starts from the opening paragraph - since I'm neither American nor Norwegian, your questions are based on false premises and are therefore unanswerable.
 
I'm also baffled by your claim that my posts are "null and void" because I apparently haven't "demonstrated willingness to employ the same scrutiny towards people who disagree with Eivind and agree with you" - a point that you seem so exercised by that you essentially repeat it in a follow-up post.  But what exactly does this mean in this particular context?  I haven't seen anyone agreeing with me round here, and I can't see anyone else in my particular camp, since I'm neither a radical feminist misandrist nor a misogynist who thinks that rape is an acceptable solution to the problem of failing to get laid by other means.   My opinions are entirely my own, based on my own experience - which is just as valid as yours, Eivind's or anyone else's.  
 
Rest assured that I'm not trying to save anyone's soul - I'm merely highlighting for the benefit of this blog's female readers that not all men are driven by their genitals to the exclusion of everything else, and for the benefit of people who do share that tendency that it's perfectly possible to have hugely fulfilling relationships with women that don't involve sexual contact (or even a desire thereof).   The fact that you seem to think that this is impossible, or at the very least that there must be some catch involved, shows how much your attitudes have been warped - partly by external factors, admittedly, but also by what appears to be a pronounced controlling tendency.  For instance, you've been repeatedly lecturing me on how you think I should be conducting myself, when this isn't even your blog!  Who made you master of the conch?
 
That said, I do accept the rationale behind your desire for me to adopt a distinguishing pseudonym, and I have duly done so.

De Selby said...

Nah, it's not just my hang-up. Evolutionary psychologists agree.

Eivind, this answer sums up precisely what's wrong with your basic worldview - instead of discussing real-world examples, you fall back on quoting evolutionary psychologists and the ladder theory as though these were the defining verdicts on the subject.  Sorry, but evo-psych is by no means settled science (to put it mildly), and my views on the ladder theory are neatly encapsulated here.  And while I admire Anton Chekhov enormously as a writer, I'm no more likely to take relationship advice from him than I am from Gogol, Dostoyevsky or anyone else who lived more than a century ago in a radically different social, cultural, political and sexual landscape to the one I inhabit. 
 
More fundamentally, your assertion that "only after sex is true platonic friendship possible between a woman and a man, and even then it is problematic as long as the man still wants sex" is more of a glib  soundbite than anything drawn from practical experience.  Not least because it's the polar opposite of my own real-world findings, which are that sex is usually the worst thing that can happen to a close and genuine friendship and should be resisted at all costs unless you're prepared to risk throwing everything away for the sake of the all too fleeting pleasure of a quick fuck.  Which isn't a very sensible trade-off to me, and is in fact exactly why I did turn a friend down when she unexpectedly made a pass at me.

Anonymous said...

De, thanks for your posts, thankfully there are still guys out there who are respectful towards women and thus eligible for our appreciation.

Evo-psych does have some interesting points but it cannot be applied to all facets of life or without scrutiny. I do tend to believe that sexual or romantic elements can easily surface in male female relationships, but it doesn't mean that such friendships cannot exist in real life. I started my relationships with two of my boyfriends just based on a friendship (even though there was infatuation on my behalf), we were friends for 2 years first before we even kissed. With the other lover we corresponded for 6 months prior to even meeting and with no romance and seeing each others' pictures. I've had other male friends.. as well as older males that I enjoy talking to with whom we don't have anything sexual. It's all perfectly possible if both parties respect each other. And for long term relationships it's also very healthy to have a friendship element there besides just the physical attraction.

the woman

Anonymous said...

"Women have a friends ladder and a separate, real ladder for potential lovers, while men have just one ladder. Normal men only make a distinction between how much we want to fuck each woman we know, not between platonic friends and women we are interested in."

Dear Eivind, the truth is, unfortunately for you, the same for women as well. In reality, men and women aren't even that different. I as a woman do not have two different ladders for friendship - it's either I am interested in the man sexually or no. There are men friends I don't want to make out with, some that I find kinda cute or some that I find very attractive but I won't engage in a physical relationship with because they are either in a relationship already with someone else or for other reasons. But I value these men's company just the same and interact with them based on our mutual interests and the fact that I find them interesting as persons.

the woman

Eivind Berge said...

De Selby, you sound like a parody. A male apologist for what men find most frustrating about women.

The Woman, how many times do you have to be date-raped before you understand most men don't feel that way (if you are the same poster who claimed she was twice)? What you are describing is exactly two ladders. Ladder theory may not be serious science, but it is a good rule of thumb for visualizing things. You think you have male friends you won't have sex with who "respect" you. It's a reasonable guess that they don't feel the same way. You benefit from thinking of them as "friends," but they probably feel you don't respect them because it is an uneven relationship where you get everything you want and they get nothing they want. And if you ever get drunk together privately, their true intentions will surface. But you will continue to delude yourself so you can get favors from more men you don't respect and who only do them in the hope of getting sex.

And for long term relationships it's also very healthy to have a friendship element there besides just the physical attraction.

Sure. No one is saying lovers can't also be friends. But friendship without sex is usually not possible from a man's point of view.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, you are being too categoric. Ease up, you sound too frustrated.

I had a couple of male friends who wanted to take it further. Well, I said no and we continued as before. But I've also had male friends who have declined my romantic advances. It works both ways. There are examples where we have a group of friends where people view each other asexually. Two of my bosses - I'm friends with both and both are married, but I know that one likes me as a woman, while the other one does not care.
I have no need to prove anything, I'm speaking merely from my vast life experiences with men. Trust me, I know men pretty well, as I've had a multitude of relationships with them. Many of them have truly respected me, there is nothing extraordinary or unnatural about respecting a woman, Eivind. Just because you cannot respect a female does not mean that other men can't and don't.

There are times when romanc begins like a spark, straight away, based on mutual physical attractiveness. And there are times when people are friends first and only then fall in love. Women and men aren't that different in this regard. For instance, I have a secret crush on my married collegue who when I first saw did not like as a man. Only having sat in the same office with him for months and having learned what he's like, do I realise that I like him. While I'm convinced that he does not desire me.

And how do I benefit from a friendship with these males more than they do? It is mutually beneficial, it's not like I draw some sort of a special benefit from these friendships. How are they uneven relationships? It is absurd to accuse me like you do! No, I don't get everything I want!
What favors?? There are no favors. I already said that I respect those men, what is it that you don't understand. I don't have to be in love with them or to be sexual with them in order to respect them. You lack experience with relationships and that's your most obvious problem. Why are you so mad?

What about friends with benefits relationships, huh? Are those not beneficial for men and a disadvantage for a woman? When men just come and take what they want and there is no prospect of a relationship for the woman. Or those relationships that start out where the guy doesn't admit that he only wants sex and has no real intentions to have a serious relationship, where he gets sexed on a regular basis but won't commit and the time, which is more precious for the female, just keeps on dragging. Loads of cases like that and very many in Norway - to be honest, this is one of the most typical things Scandinavian guys do. Many of them don't commit, don't pay for dates, but sex they do expect. So try to be more objective in your assessments.

Eivind, all your problems stem from the very fact that you don't recognize that men and women are cabapble of respecting each other as people, not just view each other as sex or material objects. It's hard to tell why you are so stuck to that opinion, but it may be the reason why there is this huge wall between you and women. I really wish only good for you, despite of your opinions, I would suggest that you do not isolate and distance yourself from women like that. I think you need more love in your life. But I doubt you will be fully happy if you continue this way.

the woman

Eivind Berge said...

A side note: Bergen, the city where Eivind lives, saw a world famous court case where a woman was indeed convicted for raping a man. It's funny how I haven't seen that mentioned on this blog. Perhaps Eivind lived in the US at the time, and is unaware of the case?

I was back in town just in time for that case, and remember it very clearly. It has enraged me more than just about anything else, so much that I am still trembling with bitter hatred as I write this. I was involuntarily celibate, and this buffoon managed to pass himself off as a "rape" victim of a woman all the way to the Supreme Court. It was the first time in world history, to my knowledge, that a grown man has managed to get a woman convicted for "rape," and hands-down the most absurd trial ever. Of course, it was enabled by feminist rape law reform five years previously and the case was a godsend to the feminists. The conviction was the greatest feminist triumph ever, a charade used to promote the lie that the sexes are equal and that the feminist definition of rape is not just about imprisoning men. The "man," brainwashed by feminist propaganda all his life, didn't know what he was getting himself into. The whole world ended up laughing at him, quite deservedly. Those unfamiliar with the case can read more at this link. Only in a feminist madhouse can a woman performing fellatio on a sleeping man be rape and the case made me ashamed to be from Bergen. I've long intended to blog about it as well, and preferably I would like to know the identity of this clown first (if anybody knows, please tell me) so I can defame him, and regret not going to court to see for myself. But it is difficult to write about because it is so infuriating. Sexually sated men may laugh, but to me it is not funny. He is a despicable feminist who contributed to diluting the definition of rape to its most absurd level yet and set a precedent to which women can point when they cry rape for the slightest sexual contact with no violence and get men convicted more easily. And the worst part was some MRAs presented it as progress. Idiots. And he also wasted millions of taxpayer money getting the state to investigate his luxury problem and convict and imprison this nice woman. I feel like beating the zest of life out of him, and will at least spit in his face once I learn who he is.

De Selby said...

Eivind Berge: De Selby, you sound like a parody. A male apologist for what men find most frustrating about women.

Actually, I reckon most of us have had a conversation around those lines at some point or other. Where I suspect we differ is how we react to it.

Ladder theory may not be serious science, but it is a good rule of thumb for visualizing things. You think you have male friends you won't have sex with who "respect" you. It's a reasonable guess that they don't feel the same way.

And while you may be right, you might also be completely wrong. In fact, there are few things more likely to damage a promising relationship than jumping to the wrong conclusion too early - whether it's the belief that they respect you or, conversely, that they're only interested in your body.

You benefit from thinking of them as "friends," but they probably feel you don't respect them because it is an uneven relationship where you get everything you want and they get nothing they want.

On the other hand, they might be entirely satisfied. Hand on heart, I have no sexual feelings whatsoever for one of my closest friends - she's simply not my physical type. So why do we email each other several times a day and hang out whenever we get the chance? It's because we have a vast number of common interests and a virtually identical sense of humour. Sex just isn't an issue - in fact, I introduced her to her current boyfriend.

And if you ever get drunk together privately, their true intentions will surface. But you will continue to delude yourself so you can get favors from more men you don't respect and who only do them in the hope of getting sex.

Drink certainly provokes greater honesty, but "true intentions" can take many forms, ranging from attempted rape to long self-pitying monologues.

Sure. No one is saying lovers can't also be friends. But friendship without sex is usually not possible from a man's point of view.

From the point of view of certain types of men who simply cannot conceive of women as anything other than purely sexual beings. But it's very much their loss.

Surely you must have noticed that the most sympathetic posts here, the ones that are genuinely trying to understand where you're coming from, have generally been made by women? Not just the comments from our friend in this thread, but also stuff like this.

De Selby said...

The woman: Eivind, you are being too categoric. Ease up, you sound too frustrated.

I think this is the root of the problem. I know exactly what extreme and irrational sexual frustration feels like, as I'm sure you do too, but most of us get over it in our teens or early twenties. If you've reached your thirties, and you're still being motivated almost entirely by lust, that's deeply unhealthy.

I had a couple of male friends who wanted to take it further. Well, I said no and we continued as before. But I've also had male friends who have declined my romantic advances. It works both ways.

Of course it does, and I'm glad someone agrees. I've been in exactly the same situation, on both sides of the fence, and how you or they handle these advances is actually a very good test of whether or not they're real friends.

Trust me, I know men pretty well, as I've had a multitude of relationships with them. Many of them have truly respected me, there is nothing extraordinary or unnatural about respecting a woman, Eivind. Just because you cannot respect a female does not mean that other men can't and don't.

Absolutely. People earn respect by treating others with respect. It doesn't matter what sex they are, or even whether they have feelings for the other person that aren't reciprocated. If I fancy someone and they tell me that they don't fancy me, I'll be disappointed, but I'll probably respect that - and if I can't respect that, the friendship will probably wither and die, as it was clearly driven mainly by fruitless sexual motives.

What favors?? There are no favors. I already said that I respect those men, what is it that you don't understand. I don't have to be in love with them or to be sexual with them in order to respect them. You lack experience with relationships and that's your most obvious problem. Why are you so mad?

I think you've just answered your own question!

What about friends with benefits relationships, huh? Are those not beneficial for men and a disadvantage for a woman? When men just come and take what they want and there is no prospect of a relationship for the woman.

But this depends on whether the woman actually wants a relationship. My most successful FWB arrangement was with someone who was in a long-term but completely non-sexual relationship (he knew all about me), and we agreed that if anyone else came along who wanted a serious one-to-one relationship and kids, she'd step discreetly aside. Amazingly enough (I think we were both surprised!), that's exactly what happened, and we remain friends to this day - though my wife has naturally laid down some ground rules of her own, which I also respect.

I really wish only good for you, despite of your opinions, I would suggest that you do not isolate and distance yourself from women like that. I think you need more love in your life. But I doubt you will be fully happy if you continue this way.

I think it's certain that he's looking at an utterly miserable life if he continues this way - and it will be largely self-inflicted. And it's such a waste, as he's clearly not stupid and he's not even as ugly as he seems to think he is - but he does seem to have this mental block about male-female relationships that derives as much from inexperience and wilful ignorance as it does from anything else. I'm sure it's treatable, but there has to be willingness on his part to be treated - and regarding women as rational and valuable human beings over and above what they have between their legs and growing out of their chest is an essential first step.

Anonymous said...

Of course, it will be mostly men who will rape women, not vice versa. Maybe this is how patriarchy was established, with that initial violent act.
About the Norwegian case.. yes, it could be that the court simply went out of its way to show that equality is the number one value in Norway. Which is good, by the way, this is what makes Norway better than 80% of the world. And one would also argue that the man should have been happy, that it is indeed a luxury problem, that every man dreams about this. But why insist on that? How do we know how the man felt? He did file the case and he did complain. How do you know that he wasn't disgusted, weirded out, humiliated, upset? He didn't give his consent at all. What about his dignity and the integrity? Doesn't his privacy and bodily integrity deserve to be protected? Besides, there was another dude there looking on. I know men who are delicate enough that they wouldn't like something like this. I once saw a guy on tv who was crying from humiliation because he had been raped. Do you think that is normal??
Maybe the punishment in the Norwegian case was too severe, but who knows. In Norway they tend to have rather high punishments and fines.
Another curious thing is whether the guy has a hard on or not.

the woman

Anonymous said...

I don't think he's motivated by sexual lust. I think he simply hates the idea of women being treated with the same respect as men and given the same status as human beings. He thinks that the natural hierarchy between the sexes is that the woman should always be below the man. And that he believes that women have received privileges that they don't deserve. His motivation is political, ideological, not sexual. Maybe he's even revolting against the modern world, who knows. It's just ironic because in a more unequal, traditionalist world, it would be even harder for him.

“I think it's certain that he's looking at an utterly miserable life if he continues this way - and it will be largely self-inflicted. And it's such a waste, as he's clearly not stupid and he's not even as ugly as he seems to think he is - but he does seem to have this mental block about male-female relationships that derives as much from inexperience and wilful ignorance as it does from anything else. I'm sure it's treatable, but there has to be willingness on his part to be treated - and regarding women as rational and valuable human beings over and above what they have between their legs and growing out of their chest is an essential first step.”

Indeed. It is all self-inflicted. His worldview is of course rather cruel, but he is not as terrible as other MRAs. He's also very smart and could make good money, if he wanted to. But he is revolting against Norway, against a liberal democracy and against women. Maybe even against capitalism. It must be some weird masculinity crisis. It's a real shame because there will hardly be any other place in the world where a person can have a free life and choose whatever life style they wish. Also, have no strings attached pre marital sex. Some attitude adjustment could help, but the problem is is that people in their 30s are already quite set in their ways.

The woman

Eivind Berge said...

@The Woman

Many of them have truly respected me, there is nothing extraordinary or unnatural about respecting a woman, Eivind. Just because you cannot respect a female does not mean that other men can't and don't.

I can respect a woman who respects me enough to sleep with me. Who accepts me. That sets her apart from most other women in the world, who reject me. Such a woman has earned my respect and friendship. But I would not respect a woman who claims she respects me but rejects me sexually. Especially considering the type of men she is likely attracted to. It is quite common for women to give themselves freely to alpha jerks and then say they "respect" their beta "friends" too much to have sex with them. The word is just an insult in that context and the woman deserves neither respect nor friendship. A lot of men feel this way and the reverse -- men rejecting their female friends sexually -- is far less common. Most of the time it holds true that men and women cannot be just friends because the man is attracted and the woman is not.

Eivind Berge said...

@De Selby

I know exactly what extreme and irrational sexual frustration feels like, as I'm sure you do too, but most of us get over it in our teens or early twenties. If you've reached your thirties, and you're still being motivated almost entirely by lust, that's deeply unhealthy.

The normal course is to get over one's frustration by actually having sex, relationships and a family by your thirties. Since I have mostly failed at this due to living in a feminist society where women have no use for me, my continuing rage is appropriate, rational and healthy. It would be deeply unhealthy to be satisfied with being a loser, and frustration is nature's way of getting you to take action to improve your life. Anything is justified if the alternative is involuntary celibacy, even rape.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think he's motivated by sexual lust. I think he simply hates the idea of women being treated with the same respect as men and given the same status as human beings. He thinks that the natural hierarchy between the sexes is that the woman should always be below the man.

Totally wrong. I am only motivated by lust and don't care where women are in the hierarchy as long as I get sex. It just turns out that men at the bottom get less sex as women rise in the hierarchy and that is why I rebel against equality for women.

It must be some weird masculinity crisis. It's a real shame because there will hardly be any other place in the world where a person can have a free life and choose whatever life style they wish. Also, have no strings attached pre marital sex.

The freedom to have premarital sex means very little when I can only manage to get 3 one-night stands with Norwegian women in 32 years. And alternative lifestyles don't interest me. If you want a normal life and aren't alpha, Norway is horrible. Fathers' rights like shared custody are also meaningless when you can't attract a woman in the first place. From my point of view, I would be better off in any traditional society. I would gladly give up all that theoretical no-strings premarital sex for one real wife I could have regular sex with and a family.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I understand why you're upset.
But respect and physical attraction are two different things.
No, not all women dig “alpha jerks”. Not all “alphas” are jerks and not all “betas” are asexual. Most men are in fact a mixture of those two types. It's a stereotype that some MRAs really like to point out that women prefer bad boys. It gives them an excuse to justify violence and ill treatment against women, as well as to affirm the idea that a male's biggest value is his ability to dominate physically. Besides, women past 25 start looking for more mellow guys. In your case, it's just an excuse to whine a bit, sorry. Most women sleep with betas because most men are not alphas. Even if alphas monopolize several women, there are still plenty of beta couples, just look around. Sure, most women want the coolest, hottest, strongest man. But in the end everyone settles for who ever they find the most compatibility with.

You can also argue that men always go after whorish looking, pretty, young women. Yes, it annoys the hell out of me when I see how men react to slutty looking women and the urge is to abandon them altogether, but I realize that would be stupid and that surely there are men who will value someone who is more mellow in their style.

No, it's not because of a “feminist” society that you don't have a relationship. Norway is not a feminist society. It is more equal than other places, but it's not feminist. If it were feminist, the number of politicians and people in power would be reversed sex wise. There are plenty of men in Scandinavia who have relationships even at an earlier age. There are also many who do not want to commit and marry at all – so there's a lot of single women! Men in the West should be starting families much earlier, but they don't because they love the freedom and drag it out as long as they can (thus jeoperdizing their own chances in the future which they don't realize during their blissful and picky bachelorhood).
Also, it could be difficult to have a serious relationship if you don't work. A Western woman has no other option but to work and make money, and she is looking forward to having children who will need to be supported, so I understand that she might be reluctant to date a man who is unemployed even past the age of 25 and especially in his 30s. Norway is economically one of the most protected countries with the lowest unemployment rates. And it is also understandable that women may not “have use” for a guy who doesn't consider them equally worthy as humans and who believes it is justifiable to rape an innocent woman. You should emphasize your other qualities and display at least a little bit of kindness if you want women to accept you. I really wish that you find love.

Anonymous said...

I believe that's what you would prefer.

But there are plenty of beta men in Norway with families. There are many options.

Concerning those men past 40 who don't have kids.. how do you know that some of them didn't deliberately avoid commitment? Maybe 40 is too late to look for a family and they should have thought about it earlier? That's not the women's fault.

Geekier guys always have the option to downgrade their expectations or import a wife.

I think they are simply scared of you. :(

the woman

Eivind Berge said...

And one would also argue that the man should have been happy, that it is indeed a luxury problem, that every man dreams about this. But why insist on that? How do we know how the man felt?

It doesn't matter how this man felt. There is simply no excuse for what he did. No reasonable man would ever report a woman for rape and only feminist morons can take it seriously. This case shows that the Norwegian police and justice system are blathering idiots with no comprehension of human nature. They appear to be mindless zombies just following a politically correct feminist script, with no inkling whatsoever of human experience. The Supreme Court actually stated that it makes no difference whether the perpetrator is male or female. Convicting a woman for "rape" is the ne plus ultra of feminism; final proof that this society is sick to the core.

This would not be rape even if a man did it to a woman, and indeed wasn't until the latest rape law reform in 2000. It was highly convenient for the feminists to get this case and they used if for all it was worth to entrench the criminalization of male sexuality. They will be able to imprison thousands of men on equally groundless charges before the next male "victim" steps forward. Jailing one woman is a very small price to pay for all the extra false rape convictions of men this helps justify.

But on the other hand, this case also helps trivialize the crime of rape tremendously. That is the silver lining. If it's true that there is no difference between the sexes and this is rape, then all I have to do to understand how women feel if I rape them is imagine waking up to some free fellatio from a 23-year-old woman. The only possible conclusion is rape must often be enjoyable for women, too, or a very trivial offense indeed.

Anonymous said...

What I cant believe is that you still want to have sex with these horrible wretched creatures.

I mean, really.
You want to get hot and stuffy with the likes of "the woman"?

I'd rather see them all killed and replaced with Artificial wombs.

Why not dedicate the 40 years of life you still have left to perusing that end?

They're never going to give you children or a family simply on account of the fact that

"""The female is physically weaker than the male. To compensate for this disadvantage the female has evolved a variety of mechanisms for manipulating males, and her mate in particular. Males must be unaware of these mechanisms for them to be effective. (An obvious long-term female strategy is to deny reproductive facilities to males who are immune to female manipulation.)"""

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/index.html

The only way It'll ever happen is if you use deceit to mask your understanding of the female and thus end up mimicking the female of the human species in being deceitful rather than truthful(a wholly male trait).

-----------------------------------

Oh and that case about the blowjob rape - DEAR GOD!
I'd much rather be awake but whatever.

De Selby said...

Eivind Berge: I can respect a woman who respects me enough to sleep with me. Who accepts me. That sets her apart from most other women in the world, who reject me. Such a woman has earned my respect and friendship.

To me, being "accepted" means something much more than sex - in fact, sex is a relatively trivial part of the equation: if it's going to happen, that's great, but it's not the be-all and end-all of my dealings with female friends and acquaintances.  There are people who I feel far more "accepted" by with whom I've never had sex (and never intend to), while I don't feel the least bit "accepted" by one-night stands - it's just a conveniently opportunistic way of relieving mutual frustration, and the only real acceptance is the tacit agreement that that's all it is.

The problem, as ever, is that you're obsessing about the sexual side of things to the exclusion of everything else, which is fatal for two reasons.  Firstly, you're almost certainly shutting out people who might otherwise be valuable for different reasons - for instance, one of my best friends is a regular writing partner who has introduced me to plenty of lucrative commissions (and I've done the same for her).  Secondly, it just makes you look needy and desperate, and few things are a bigger turn-off.  They might have sex with you out of pity, but it's unlikely to have much to do with respect.  

But I would not respect a woman who claims she respects me but rejects me sexually.

Which may well be your loss.  She may have a great many other virtues that you're ignoring because of your one-track mind.

As I said above, I turned down a friend's drunken advances precisely because I respected her enough to realise that the potential damage this might do to our long-term friendship absolutely wasn't worth any short-term pleasure.  Incidentally, this same friend later introduced me to someone that I went on to have a seven-year relationship with, so it was absolutely worth it.   (And that's another advantage to having close female friends - you're statistically much more likely to meet someone who's right for you, and they may even push them in your direction).

Especially considering the type of men she is likely attracted to. It is quite common for women to give themselves freely to alpha jerks and then say they "respect" their beta "friends" too much to have sex with them. The word is just an insult in that context and the woman deserves neither respect nor friendship.

But how do you know this?  I once had a two-year relationship with a woman who was openly lusted after by virtually all her colleagues, but they assumed that she was out of their league and that she'd only go for stereotypical alpha males.  But what they didn't know, largely because they didn't bother to find out by actually talking to her, was that under the brash exterior she was far more interested in people who thought of her as more than just a sex object.  I was lucky: our relationship began over the phone (she was the personal assistant to someone I regularly did business with), so I had no idea that she was considered unattainable - and by the time we finally met face to face we were already friends so the next stage was easy.

And the moral of that story?  Don't pigeonhole and stereotype people in advance.  Instead of jumping to conclusions, actually ask them.  Not only is there a distinct possibility that you might be wrong about them, but they might even be flattered by the interest, provided you don't come across as overly desperate (which I suspect is the root of most of your problems).

Eivind Berge said...

@The Woman

Also, it could be difficult to have a serious relationship if you don't work.

Actually, I do work some, as a translator and for a temp agency. Right now I have work at a courier service for a few weeks at least. Going to work now at 5 AM.

But if we really had gender equality, men wouldn't need to be employed in order to have sex and relationships any more than women do. Equality is a sham until we allow sexual coercion to correct this.

emotionally traumatized said...

I must say I think the intellectual quality of the debate here now is almost astonishingly high - this is far better than the comments section under PZ Myers' blog post on Eivind, for instance.

Let me just add that I indeed have close female friends. Not just a couple, either. That's not to say though that I wouldn't have jumped them all, if I had the chance.

I also have female lovers that I find less interesting intellectually, and that I would never want to commit either my name or monogamous fidelity to. I still have sex with them almost whenever we have an opportunity. The strange thing is that some of those want to own me, and talk some rubbish at times about the future. I don't comment on that. Eventually they accept that what we have is a sexual relationship, and that that is better than nothing. They will cling to that until they find someone who is willing to have them as a steady girlfriend. And then I'll also have sex with them in between such relationships that they have.

There was this afterparty not so long ago where it was myself and another guy in an apartment. The host was a woman. I was drunk so I can't remember the details, but she laid down next to me. Not long after, I was fingering her. Her bottom was facing me and she was only wearing a summer dress, so it was easy to access her genitals, by pulling the panties aside. I must have fingered her for at least half an hour - causing her to spasm several times. The problem is that I've had second thoughts about that later on, and now I don't quite know how to face her next time we meet. We live in the same area, and had only ever talked once before - also while drunk. She's a single mother, and both I and the other guy who was present think she did it all consciously and wanted it to happen - as she wanted some sexual stimulation. He later also fingered her after I left. Regardless, I find it problematic.

I don't think that "the woman" here in the thread (thanks for adding something that makes you recognizable) should assume that most guys are players or have one-track minds. I find De Selby to be highly eloquent (and most likely a Briton), but his attitudes towards sex and gender etc seem fairly run of the mill to me (only expressed with above average cohesion and literacy). I'm sure thousands upon thousands of Norwegian men have somewhat similar, political correct attitudes towards these issues. (But very few would be able to express them in such excellent English - Eivind being an exception. I'm not sure non-Norwegian readers here are aware how rare it is to see Norwegians express themselves with such command of the English written language as Eivind does daily - and seemingly effortlessly.)

emotionally traumatized said...

(Btw, between myself and the other guy fingering her, she was up and about, fully alert, and seemed quite energetic. I re-read my text and saw it could be interpreted as we'd both been fingering a comatose individual. That was certainly not the case.)

emotionally traumatized said...

Btw, here are two articles about false rape accusations in Norway -

1) article/commentary from a police lawyer:

http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2007/12/15/521293.html

2)A Bergen newspaper (the more tabloid of the two leading ones) reporting on this:

http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article3204543.ece

The guy in question here, the police lawyer, is no longer a police lawyer. He works as a regular lawyer instead (where he probably makes considerable more money). I feel very sure that he had already handed in his resignation when he had his article published, as within the feminist police force we have in Norway, someone at the low level of hierarchy writing something like this, will have a real hard time advancing in his career within the police.

Non-English readers can hopefully have these articles easily translated with the help of for instance google translate.

I'm sure Eivind was aware of these articles already.

Anonymous said...

Eivind: It’s good that you are employed now, it’s just that you said in some of the previous blog discussions that unemployment had been a long term problem for you. It is great that it has been resolved now. After all, you focus so much on gender specialization, that it is just appropriate that you yourself make sure that you specialize within your own gender (e.g., become what the traditionalist society considers a “man”).

It is gender equality, not sexual equality. Sex is owned by the individual and resides in her body, it belongs to the person and there is no obligation to share it. It is inalienable. It is a completely different category than political rights and economic/cultural gender streamlining. A woman can deal out as little or much sex as she wishes, because it is her body. I mean, nobody can arbitrarily demand to borrow some part of your body and use it. Nobody is forcing men to deal out their physical strength on anybody’s whim or for free. There is practically no mandatory military service today and in case it still exists the men are subsidized / paid for it. Moreover, chivalry is almost dead and men do not lend a hand when it comes to women’s physical needs (women carry their own bags or hire people to do physical work). Women owe men nothing. And even then these two things cannot be compared because sexual intercourse can be intimately linked to the soul or mental life of the person. It also involves reproductive issues. This is an absurd premise of yours, Eivind. The women owe men nothing.

Equality is political, practical, cultural, not sexual. This was one of Warren Farrel’s mistakes when he argued that in order to create more equality women should be encouraged to make the first step and initiate relationships and encounters more. This can only be increased to a very small extent (which we see only among the bravest and most liberated women because even though it isn’t “natural” for the woman to do that we can change some of our habits and cultural perceptions). There are things within the depths of our biology which will not change, such as the woman’s sexual nature, the men’s levels of testosterone or the women’s childbearing capability. Currently some men don’t get enough access to sex. Well, tough shit. Not all women had access to resources under traditional patriarchy. There are negatives for women too – she is stuck with a child in case she gets impregnated during an irregular intercourse and the man leaves (because he can - as a male he is more detached and free). Tough shit. Man and woman have sex, but he doesn’t want commitment –well, tough shit for the woman. This happens every day (like emo said). In a traditionalist society, where there was less gender equality, the man couldn’t get away with no strings attached sex – he had to marry the girl he touched. Feminism and liberal sex mores benefit men first and foremost, they however make it harder for women to have stable families and husbands they can feel secure about. It is just as hard as it is for you to get sex to get a stable (especially life long) partner, actually because the woman can only attract with her beauty, while the man can attract with his wealth (which is a lot easier today as wealth is much more broader distributed today than beauty). Men have choices too today like never before and they exercise those choices to their utter benefit.

the woman

Anonymous said...

Emo: “I don't think that "the woman" here in the thread should assume that most guys are players or have one-track minds.”

Many guys are players and do have one track minds. Men also enjoy many more liberties as ever before. They don’t have to commit, they don’t have to support a woman financially, they don’t have to stay with the same woman for their whole life. So be it. But in that case let us, women, have our liberties as well and do not threaten us with violence and do not construct rape legitimizing theories.
Yes, men are different and many of them are respectful. Thankfully there are some good men out there still. I wonder how long it will take for women to catch up on the way men’s habits, natures, attitudes have changed and adjust their behavior accordingly.

the woman

Anonymous said...

And, emo, that woman was clearly consenting and enjoying it. It can still happen in other cases where the woman is intoxicated that she is physically incapacitated to resist.

Eivind Berge said...

@The Woman

Nobody is forcing men to deal out their physical strength on anybody’s whim or for free. There is practically no mandatory military service today and in case it still exists the men are subsidized / paid for it.

Bullshit. I was forced to serve one year in the army and was compensated less (72 kr) per day than the lowest job pays in an hour.

Norwegian feminists have made it clear they don't support mandatory military service for women, nor do they seek to abolish it for men. As always, women want all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

You have no argument whatsoever. It was feminists who said "the personal is political." This has always been true for men and it's high time it gets applied to women as well. We don't need women in the military, but we do need them in our beds.

Currently some men don’t get enough access to sex. Well, tough shit. Not all women had access to resources under traditional patriarchy.

Sex/reproduction is more important than material resources and all women had access to it. I am quite literally facing a fate worse than death. That is exactly how involuntary celibacy subjectively feels, not the least bit understated. Even if I were 100% certain of arrest and execution, I still feel rape is worth it if this is the only way I can get sex and a shot at reproduction.

There are negatives for women too – she is stuck with a child in case she gets impregnated during an irregular intercourse and the man leaves (because he can - as a male he is more detached and free). Tough shit.

The man is not free. He has to pay child support, and often it is the woman who leaves. And again, reproduction is so important to me that I would not use a condom even knowing I would have to pay and there would be no relationship. So no sympathy for your "tough shit."

Women control completely what I would pay for with my life. Everything else is subordinate to sex and reproduction. Male resources are merely means to that end. Pretending gender equality has nothing to do with sexual equality is highly disingenuous and I am trying to educate men not to fall for it.

Anonymous said...

The military service, where conscription still exists, like you said only runs for one year. Besides you get fed and you get a place to live. All that is paid for by tax payers' money, including women's. I as a woman have never had a situation where I had food and board for a whole year for exercising. We do not get male protection for free – we pay for it. Most women do not use any of the male protection as they do not risk their safety, do not break the law and do not propagate expansionist, aggressive foreign policy. Yet we pay for expensive military endeavors. I'm not saying they're bad or completely unnecessary, but we also end up paying for hummers, weapons and the army salaries. Actually, I as a woman am still subsidizing patriarchy with my taxes. We don't receive male physical or financial protection anymore, we have paid for it via our taxes. You are not providing anything for us for free. Each person provides for themselves now. If you are feeling entitled to sex and believe that sex should be coerced, then by the same token I shall demand that the man protect me physically and support me financially. Then it would be fair if women exchanged sex for that.

Instead, you ask for too much. You ask that the woman provide for herself, carry on with her life without male assistence and still give a man sex just because he is a man. This is utter bullshit. We either go back to the old patriarchy where the man works for the woman, provides for her and the child or we have gender equality. There will be no in between. Most men have it much easier these days, they don't have to provide and above that they get no strings attached sex and if they want they can start a family. They don't even have to marry and take up real obligations – 40% of children are born out of wedlock. These are the options for most men in today's West. I think those are very good options and the freedoms are great. You just have to learn to handle freedom.

No, not all women had access to fundamental resources. They had to be slaves in order to survive. They didn't have freedom.

Indeed, reproductive failure is serious, I share your concern, it is somewhat scary. I also may not have a standard family or find love. But am I going to blame the world? Yea, I can blame the culture (the patriarchy because it misled me), but in the end it is nobody's responsibility or mere bad luck but mine. I don't have the right to hurt another person or hate the whole male sex for this. It is just a fact of life, something that we as Darwinists must accept.

The only thing one can do is try to make oneself more pleasant or appealing to the opposite sex. You do not have to rape an innocent person (even though it looks as if it is just a political stance on your behalf, you have to go out of your way to prove that feminism is somehow destructive while in fact it has only been a blessing for most modern men). A man can just make money by working and thus attract a woman – there will always be poorer women with less expectations in a man. Or he can buy a surrogate mother (just like Cristiano Ronaldo just did). There goes your reproduction argument. Of course, if you want love, then it's a different story.
But one can reproduce outside the family these days. Again, you don't have to “pay with your life”. You can simply adjust your attitude or make some money. In the 10 years during which you didn't work you could have saved enough money for a surrogate. And you can still do it.

Anonymous said...

And, btw, emo, why are you bragging about your sexual encounters and women who cling to you in Eivind's face? Don't pour salt on his wounds. :)

the woman

emotionally traumatized said...

The woman, are you trying to divide and conquer? :-) I'm sure that's a feminine manipulative skill that is acquired very early.. (I have a smaller sister.) Not that some men don't master it as well, but I feel I see it a lot more often in women.

Well, I'm a little older than Eivind. Not considerably, perhaps.. I can understand and relate to most things he writes, perhaps everything, as there have been periods in my life where I, as well, have experienced involuntary celebacy. Especially early in my twenties. It was absolutely horrible, excruciating. I almost lost my mind. At that time I was living in a small place, and I had nothing that the women there were looking for. I was not one of the rough guys, with a styled car or a noisy bike, or anything like that.

Also, I divide my time between several cities, and the few women I've established that kind of sexual relationship with that I described, are also not always available. And besides, my former emotional hang-up with my ex (perhaps both as she had such awesome feminine qualities, and as she left me wounder and tainted) has kept me from establishing solid relationships - plus also had me very sceptical and cynical towards women for a few years.

I've been wondering about one thing you wrote - the part about the overglamorized woman being high maintenance/expensive. Why is that, exactly? Should we not regard that as simply a lifestyle choice, on par with any other? I don't see her beauty maintenance as being more expensive than getting tattoos, for instance, and she doesn't own a car, a home or anything else that would require heavy investment. Why is it that we should naturally grant her the right to pump men of money? She can't hold down a single female friend for long, as they all quickly disapprove of her low moral standards and her all too ready willingness to exploit men. Her beauty is natural - she has really been fortunate in that regard - so that other than continuous bleaching of her hair, and maintaining a continuous supply of make-up, I don't quite see how it's costly for her to stay, as you put it, "over-glamorized". I think she is just lazy and, let's face it, either evil or stupid or a mix of both (what I called "personality disorder" in a previous post). But so damn feminine and gorgeous that I've been left with unrealistically high standards that I find impossible to change. You can't undo what's been done. I've had about as beautiful a woman as it's possible to get, and I've always been occupied with beauty. (Certainly not restricted to women - I have refined sensibilities and enjoy art, beautiful classical (and other) music and so on and so on.. )

Anonymous said...

Emo: no, had no intention to divide or even more so conquer. :) I have no need or desire to conquer either you or Eivind. :) I just feel it shouldn't be rubbed in his face because he is genuinly frustrated (on the other hand – why not, it works against his argument and shows that it's not such a sexual desert our there for men like he claims). Yea, and your male bragging was indeed noticable, it's so typical. :)

Speaking of guys in their early 20s.. it depends. Not all of them are celibate. I had long term boyfriends who were 19-23 and we had sex constantly for months and years while they were broke (and I can certainly identify with you because those handsome princes really spoiled me). So it's not a classical problem for all younger men. Besides many women casually sleep with young men as they are the most virile and simply sexually electrifying. So it's not that bad for younger guys these days.

So what exactly was it about your ex that made her so “feminine”, besides her natural beauty?

Being glamorized is, of course, a lifestyle choice to some extent. But it also has to do with pressure that women are under because the message is still that the woman's worth is her physical side. She knows that this will be valued above all, no matter what the character, so she focuses on that.
It is high maintenance btw. Yes, the hair coloring and tanning is not cheap (one has to do it regularly) and make up makes a hell of a difference (I see the difference in men's reactions all the time). It takes time to do really good make up, I would rather spend that time reading a book or sleeping. Basically, to look like a porno model, takes some money, not even that little, especially in Norge, and above all time (this is why women traditionally are excused for being fashionably late). Wearing high heel shoes is a real drag too, btw. You have no way of knowing that as a male, but it can actually be painful. Waxing is very painful too. “Beauty demands sacrifices”, as they say.. then the question is, which men are worth making those sacrifices for...
Of course, a woman can be glamorized and vain, but still have a good heart at the same time, like Pam Anderson, for instance. But generally this vanity and the focus on superficial beauty signals that there has to be a trade in. I understand that you want to be in a company of a beautiful woman and still have the equality (not provide any cash) but it doesn't work that way in real life. Youth and beauty especially are scarce and they are sought after by many men who will compete for it. There's not enough for everyone. There are men who will take such a woman with open arms even is she is a bitch or a former prostitute. This is just a typical supply and demand. Of course, I don't support such morality. But on the other hand, if a man doesn't support you financially why should you dress up for him, unless he is hot himself and you desire him for who he is? Btw.. a man can also adopt such a “lifestyle choice”. :) By hunking himself up or buying a flashy car. :) To raise his market value.. hehe.

the woman

Eivind Berge said...

I as a woman have never had a situation where I had food and board for a whole year for exercising.

Military service is optional for women and mandatory for men. Women can have everything men have if they feel like it and so much more, while men have actual duties and don't have sexual agency. The more you try to argue, the clearer it becomes that all arguments against rape at this point are null and void.

Anonymous said...

emo: I can't help but feel that you are demonizing this woman... though I don't approve of her behavior, I think it is your own fault and responsibility that you submitted to her and now suffer the consequences. It is your individual responsibility, do not blame her.

Anonymous said...

Calm down, Eivind. As far as I know, bearing children is still somewhat expected of women, as well as raising them. That while simultaneously earning money.
Men have very few duties these days, one year's military service (with all due respect to military professionals) does not compare to the work that women do in society. You have absolutely no right to claim sex from women. You have not granted us anything in return.

the woman

Eivind Berge said...

You have absolutely no right to claim sex from women. You have not granted us anything in return.

So a year of man's life is worthless, eh? Bearing children is also optional for women, and from now on I will have to pay taxes to support those while being excluded from having children myself. None of your points are valid.

In the 10 years during which you didn't work you could have saved enough money for a surrogate. And you can still do it.

I couldn't have saved my student loan for a surrogate mother when it was barely enough to survive. Surrogate mothers cost more than love, so they are irrelevant anyway unless you don't like women. You are asking me to pay for what women get handed to them. There is no equality in this system without sexual coercion.

Anonymous said...

I don't really want to argue. But ok.

I never said a year in a man's life is worthless. Doing military service for one year, in countries where it is still mandatory, is not that much to ask. You are supported during that time with the women's tax money. I already said that the military complex is too expensive.
Bearing children, even if optional, is something that women are expected to do and get a lot of stigma and constant pressure if they don't. Well, someone has to bring out the next generation. It is still women who bear the most brunt in that duty and it is the most important contribution to the society there is.

It is of course your own business, but you didn't have to be a professional student for 10 years. Most men start working in their early 20s. Don't blame women that they didn't want to mate with someone who cannot provide even for the inital stages of a family unit. If you can't provide funds, then at least provide a good heart. Which you can't if you hate women and don't wish them well.

No, women do not get handed anything. Most women's benefits are the taxes that they have already paid. Besides the work they do by bringing children to the world and raising them is worth much more than the money they receive. Nothing can replace a human.

the woman

emotionally traumatized said...

"emo: I can't help but feel that you are demonizing this woman... though I don't approve of her behavior, I think it is your own fault and responsibility that you submitted to her and now suffer the consequences. It is your individual responsibility, do not blame her."

Utter bullshit.. As usual you want to hand men with all responsibility, and women should have none - they are natural beings and have no control of their actions.. ? She was enticing, sensuous, dressed for success. She was in the business of making men fall for her. Are you seriously suggesting that love or limerence are emotions that I, as a man, should be entirely in control of? Whereas the woman has no responsibility for the effects she has on men, even when she's done everything in her powers to become as attractive and seductive as possible??

Seems you have also completely forgotten the part about how she misuses police and the courts, in order to sort out any man she no longer is interested in, with seemingly no regard whatsoever that she is tieing up police resources - and let's not forget, also lying, and using rape allegations (filing charges with the police) as a means of extortion (against the man she two years later left me for!).

Honestly, you must've forgotten already that I mentioned all this... You must've also forgotten that I have a weak spot for her, and that there's always a little part of me willing to excuse her - as she had some traumatizing experience in her childhood, with her powerful father, which left her obviously personality disordered (early abuse is usually where PDs stem from - how they come to be). But I can't excuse those individuals within the police who dance to her pipe, yet should a lot better, being professionals, and not personally involved. (But let's not forget that the complicit ones were in the minority, and that the police no longer takes her seriously - she had the benefit once of moving from a small town to a capital city, and that the police did not check her past history in the small town, etc etc.) She is now 30, and still hasn't changed her behaviour - it is exactly the same as it always was, except she doesn't file false charges anymore. (She got scared from the experience of being charged, herself, I guess.)

Why on earth are you leaving this all up to me? I wish I had never met her. I've been trying forever since to cleanse her out of my system. She told me time and time again that she cared about me. Started talking about family etc etc. Then one day summarily dumped me via sms, and left me for the guy she 2 years prior had pressed rape charges against with the police..

You seem to have come back to the intellectually lazy position of blaming everything on men.

Ps. She doesn't tan - she's pale as hell. Tender skin type ;-)

Anonymous said...

Emo: you are clearly obsessed with her.

I'm not justifying her, it just appeared to me for a moment that you were demonizing her. What she did with police, courts and false rape accusations (but it wasn't you, was it? It was the other guy and you weren't there). She is clearly not normal from what you describe. If she is hot, she doesn't need to go to court to get money from men.

“She was in the business of making men fall for her.”

What business is this? Escorting, consummation, prostitution?

I blame her for the police shit, I blame you for not thinking rationally. Yea, I can relate. I am also infatuated with a handsome man and I even though he treats me well, he won't commit to me. Yet I come up with all kinds of excuses to stay in touch with him. I also spoil him with too much attention, even though I know it's wrong. But at least I have enough common sense not to pursue him or fantasize about a “common future”.
That particular thing about how she dumped you happens quite often with people in their 20s. Guys do that quite often. You always have to keep your mind sober to spot such people. It's hard in your early 20s when you love passionately.

I'm not blaming everything on men, I rarely do that. It's only when they make me impatient with their whining and childlike attitude (as in everything outside me is to be blame, not me, feminism, etc.), one of my biggest pet pieves, men who act like children. You have an independent mind and a free wil, that's why you are a man.

the woman

emotionally traumatized said...

"It is of course your own business, but you didn't have to be a professional student for 10 years. Most men start working in their early 20s. Don't blame women that they didn't want to mate with someone who cannot provide even for the inital stages of a family unit. If you can't provide funds, then at least provide a good heart."

I'm a bit confused about you.. Sometimes you talk about Norway as though you know the country and its culture well, and other times you talk as if you are from within the US cultural and political system. As demonstrated here. In fact, students in Norway are in a brilliant position to have children. They get lots of special grants if they have children while they are students, and there are separate student villages and kindergartens etc for them. So this little piece of advice or moralizing on your part simply is not connected to Norwegian reality. And I don't even think most men start working by their early twenties, in Norway + even if they did, they would mostly be in a special apprentice position, where they earn a lot less than gainfully employed people, leaving them with personal budgets no bigger than that of a student working only slightly part-time..

So it seems that this is a dead-end that you've gone into, as far as talking points are concerned. It simply isn't relevant. Did you check any statistics before writing this?

Also, first time mothers are getting ever closer to averaging 30 years of age in Norway. First time fathers have long since averaged well above 30. It's not even very special, within the Norwegian context, for Eivind to be still studying at 32. We have plenty of mature students from both sexes. Average age of students in Norways is between 25 and 30 somewhere.

I see many men who are fathers, that study. And of course many women as well. Mostly the guys are quite tall, though. Women are not rational, and go for height, even though it seems entirely irrelevant in our modern society. The vast majority of low-income, or student, or unemployed fathers I see (and I've observed hundreds and hundreds, as I've been interested in such aspects for years already) are clearly taller than average. Most loners, even if they have average to above average payed jobs, for their age, are clearly shorter than average. They can be as charming and forthcoming as imaginable, yet remain childless and womanless for very long - some "forever". (That is, until they finally see the light, realize what's going on, and find themselves a down to earth Eastern European woman - they really are more down to earth and natural - a Philippino or Thai etc.) Whenever I visit some female online forum, Norwegian type, almost half of all the topics are about how tall their boyfriends are (comparing) or how long and thick their penises. Seriously. And upon closer inspection, many of these women are gainfully employed, or have several years of university studies behind them - some even post-grad degrees. Just saying :-)

Anonymous said...

And, emo, if you do not take any personal responsibility for not evaluating your relationship, then do not blame those women who fall for bad boy alphas - they are also only following their passion and in fact an evolutionary pull, just like you were.

the woman

Anonymous said...

Emo: I'm quite familiar with Norway, but I'm not from Western Europe.

I have met different types of Norwegian men and even though it's common to stay in school for long, many of them worked even in their mid 20s. (Btw, I have two female friends who are below 25 and both work full time and study long distance).

Same for Swedish guys, they actually start quite early, I know several Swedish boys in their early 20s who work full time and travel. Of course, others are in university. And they should use the benefits and have more kids. Which they do it seems, as there are more kids born in Norway than other parts of Europe.

It only makes sense that the women go for taller men – it is prescribed by evolution. Just like you prefer a beautiful, young woman with an hour glass figure, so they prefer a taller guy. It is just natural. Ugly girls and fat girls have a harder time, just like shorter guys. It sucks and it's not fair, but such is the law of nature. Very cruel, I agree.

emotionally traumatized said...

Yikes, woman.. Who says I don't take personal responsibility?? You go from one extreme to the other. She's supposed to have no responsibility, it's all up to me, and then I suddenly don't take any responsibility, and... I don't know. Your lack of discernable logic here exhausts me a bit. If I was to care.

Ps. No. I am not obsessed with her, but there have been times when I more or less have been. Which she herself played a very big part of, as she did all she could to entice me and lead me on - for who knows what reason (newsflash: personality disordered people do not make sense in any traditional fashion), plus, you know, she was extremely unsophisticated in dealing with me, and with all her break-ups in general (I'm friends with all other exes, she can't talk with any of them - do we detect a trend?), by dragging my name into police records and courts etc. As she's done with other men as well. For someone who has the least bit of honour about their own reputations and names, that is not the miracle cure for getting a guy to get over you..

But, pretty please, can we get back to the relevant parts soon, or are you just going to be like 95% of all women, and handle this like "I know all women, and I'm going to tell you, the guy/chump how it is and what happened". Far too reductionist. I always like to think the individual and personality is more important than gender. And as far as individuals go, you only know yourself and your own desires, whereas I've slept with quite a few women, and know there are differences. You can't extrapolate from the one (yourself) to all women. It's just ridiculous, yet far too many women jump at the opportunity to do just so. To see if we buy into your manipulative bullshit.

Anyway, let's get back to what matters: The way the Norwegian society is skewed towards feministic values and practices, and how there actually isn't real equality between the sexes. That is the beef that Eivind has, and that is why I brought up that one woman - who helped highlight for me what actually can be found within the feminist mentalities of more than just very few public servants - and not all the others, who were more down-to-earth and managed my company far more smoothly. Let's not have you patronize people here, extrapolating from the one, messed up individual, to all women. It's not about her - it's about what inconsistencies she helped highlight within the mindset and policies of Norwegian authorities. (And before I give up on you completely, I guess I have to remind you that police no longer take her seriously - unless, of course, some real crime happened to her, I guess - and that those who tried to follow feministic and thus irrational policies, in dealing with her pleas/charges, were in the minority, and lost in court..)

(Yes, you already strike me as a run-of-the-mill online woman, who can't think rationally even if her life depended upon it, focusing only on bits and pieces of the picture at a time. I wonder if I'd tend to agree with Eivind that most women are incapable of truly rational thought. And indulge me, please - write my full nick, not just "emo" - emo means something, and I am very definitely not an "emo" person. Sheesh.. :-))

Anonymous said...

Emo: but that's exactly what you did - you took this woman's example and tried to show that she is some sort of a paragon of all females, while in reality you happened to get involved with a real psycho. Because you apparently focused too much on her looks and neglected or downplayed her disorderly personality.

I also judge people on individual merit. Men are also very different. That's what's great about them. If I lash out sometimes about certain "male" qualities, this is merely because of some of my own slightly painful experiences. But those pale in comparison to the pleasure and happiness I get from the good men. So I will never hate or demonize the whole male sex and say things like "they are all irrational, slaves to their sex drive" or "they all have a ruthless killer inside them".

the woman

john halder said...

rape...for the FUCK of it!

Anonymous said...

A strong kick in the balls.
Another idea is to artificially sharpen the teeth and slash his artery. He he.

emotionally traumatized said...

"Emo: but that's exactly what you did - you took this woman's example and tried to show that she is some sort of a paragon of all females, while in reality you happened to get involved with a real psycho. Because you apparently focused too much on her looks and neglected or downplayed her disorderly personality."

Well alright.. Yes, she is indeed a psycho, and many have identified her as such. But I don't extrapolate from her unto women in general. Again, I separate between her, and the attitudes I came across with both some women (defending her by default, as she is a woman - without bothering to find out she was a psycho - when getting advice from women who had never met her), and with some few people within the police (one police lawyer, at least - whereas most others easily dismissed her madness).

So the point is how my experiences with her has been a prism through which I've been allowed to glimpse some of the things that are wrong with gender focus in Norway.

And she's quite beautiful or sweet-looking, but many guys find many other women hotter. I am around beautiful women almost daily, and can tell that several are objectively as hot or hotter. I react to none of them the way I did with her - so that was infatuation/love and had to do with something that I found special about her, and not looks alone. I am almost immune to great looks in women - that doesn't make me fall for them. I don't know what it was about this particular one - and it would perhaps be going off on tangents to get into that in the thread/debate here..

I've been lucky to meet many great women since my days with her, and have had wonderful romantic experiences, gotten a good few lifelong friends, etc. But I am still sometimes shaken, when thinking back upon what I experienced due to this drama-queen I've described. (And of course, plenty of women have had experiences with men, that leave them shaken/traumatized for long. And some of those experiences may also be exacerbated by how authorities handle the situations - as personality disordered people can be great natural liars/actors, completely regardless of their respective genders.)

emotionally traumatized said...

"A strong kick in the balls.
Another idea is to artificially sharpen the teeth and slash his artery. He he."

You're not helping. You should not come here and write stuff like that - it's irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

Emo: you didn't explain what it was exactly that made her so "feminine".

Of course the cops defend the woman. The woman is more likely to be the victim. That's purely biological. Men are physically stronger and more prone to violence than women. Cops are just being cautious.

So you have been around many beautiful women and can tell which one is hotter, but you still do not have a family at over 32 years of age. Whatever.

And for kicking the rapist in the balls - that's what my dad taught me. So it's ok for MRAs to u advocate rape and violence on women but it's irresponsible to say that you will fight back? Honestly, I think I would not have any qualms about shooting Eivind or john halder in the face if they ever approached me. They have advocated rape and violence against me (a woman) for a very long time now. That's called self defense.

emotionally traumatized said...

"Of course the cops defend the woman. The woman is more likely to be the victim. That's purely biological. Men are physically stronger and more prone to violence than women. Cops are just being cautious."

- Seems you've dropped your brain on the floor again: This was never about violence. So why make this point? I've also mentioned time and time again, since I've noticed that your reading comprehension is a bit off, that the majority of police/courts have shown clearsightedness.

"So you have been around many beautiful women and can tell which one is hotter, but you still do not have a family at over 32 years of age. Whatever."

- What kind of logic/arguing IS this?? I honestly can't figure it out. I am sorry to say, but I've mostly only ever seen debating as sloppy and nonsensical as this from women. You also comee across as very American, in what mentality, standards, catch-phrases and yardsticks you use. This sounds very US-centric. How many Norwegian guys with higher education are fathers at the age of 33? And what relevance does it have at ALL for what we are discussing here, either way?

- Were you not the one who wrote just yesterday that Norwegian men have a lot of freedom, and don't need to commit? So what is this? And what's being able to tell hot women apart got to do with it? Do you realize just how stupid and ridiculous you sound now? What are you trying to say - do you even know yourself, or are you posting without your brain plugged in?

- I am sorry, but the most I've seen from you here, your contributions, although at times good-hearted, only serve to strengthen the notion that women are incapable of rational thought. You remind me of the intellectual dullness I've seen in many a post by American women.

- Also, like most other dolts I've ever encountered online, you seem completely unable to discuss things point by point. I take this to be an effect of your general lack of IQ. It does take a certain level of mental competence to be able to structure first mentally what you read, and then to sort the elements out and argue them point by point, and orderly. You are being very intellectually lazy and just latching onto whatever you fancy at the moment, with no discernable basic logic or stance, and seemingly sometimes just to get personal and detract from the high level of debate we have here - except from your contributions. Bring back De Selby. He was able to make points. You are just a run-of-the-mill idiot female contributor - the likes of which I can find anywhere online, because that is where fat and ugly women go to channel out their frustrations and try to regain a sense of control over the other sex.

- And quit fucking calling me "emo", you useless retard.

emotionally traumatized said...

Ps. You don't shoot anyone in the face if you don't absolutely have to, you useless American bitch. There are principles for self-defence, and even in the backwards state somewhere that you live in, I'm sure they must have some legal standards? You don't hurt anyone one iota more than your defensive situation requires. If you go further than that, then you yourself are a criminal, and should be persecuted, tried and convicted for gun-violence.

At least in Norway, the limit for self-defencive violence is drawn according to what can be deemed absolutely necessary for defense. Come here with your intellectually lazy, sloppy and hostile US mentality, and your gun, and shoot someone in the face without it being the only possible target and option for you in your act of self-defence, and you will spend a long time in jail. Also for carrying a gun in the first place.

You're not helping either. The lazy and stupid things you write here, on your more sloppy days (like most women, you fluctuate, and is here one moment and there the next, with no fixed moral values, or recognizable philosophical platform), only adds to the hatred and contempt many men naturally feel towards self-indulging, spoiled women.

I've described to you how a woman fucked up my life, by playing with my emotions, using me and then dragging my name through the dirt (as hers was already dirty, which I did not know at the time), causing me to also have trust-issues with women (why would I risk awarding marital rights and dedicate my name and life to one - of the western type - after what I went through?) and yet you carelessly write insanely stupid things such as suggesting I should have a family by the age of 32 - when that is not even the standard in this country - and also seem to question that I am able to tell which women are hot, because I don't have a family??

Until the day you realize just how incredibly stupid that is, I don't think you have anything more to contribute here. You just keep hanging around in the blog of a guy you'd like to shoot in the face, as you have nothing better to do. Don't tell me you don't have any issues as well - it's plain to see. But what's worse is that you are irredeemably stupid. Most other things can be fixed - that can't. Fuck off and die.

Anonymous said...

You blabber way too much.

And I am not American. :) But purely European. :)

People should mate and have kids when they're in their 20s. :) or 30s if they're healthy enough. Haha.

Hahahaha, you dumbass, I'm a free Nordic European, I will never accept this women hating bullshit.

You and Eivind will die alone. Because you do not recognize a simple thing like respect for a woman. I have followed these blogs for a long time, hoping to find a common ground. But he only had aggression and you only like porno whores. That's why you will both remain alone. I know that most Norwegian men are not like that. But if they ever get arrogant like you.. they will remain alone.

john halder said...

haha. so, if i or evind merely approach you. you'd shoot us huh?

well, given the opportunity
i would be THRILLED to rape you with!... a broken coke bottle.

it's like this, i owe women NOTHING.
'women' have only lied to me, more times than i could ever count, and attempt to denigrate me, with your bullshit insults. 'youre creepy' 'you're fat'. insults now well known as feminist shaming language.

guess what? youre not even WORTH worth raping! nope,not even with o.j,s dick
id' use the ol broken coke bottle. the bonus? no dna. and a dead witness.
fuck raping you worthless 'givers of life' that you abort by the millions.
i had the chance, id line you all up, shoot you all in the back of the heads.
and, nope, im not joking and im not even angry!
cool huh?
once gain, for the folks in the cheap seats,sex is a mans birthright. that's a biological, evolutionary fact.( i know, i know, you think men are here to decorate, sorry, were not all gay)
and i dont sleep with whores.
dont even want to. and never forget you nasty bitches, we wind up alone, you do too!
unless you get into carpet munching en masse.
so, in conclusion, i'm NOT advocating rape.
i'm advocating the outright murder of women.

you guys have a great night!

Anonymous said...

aw, come on, john.

I would never say to you in your face that you're fat. I'm sorry that someone treated you bad.
But no, sex is not a right.

And I've never had an abortion.

the woman

john halder said...

you havent had an abortion, YET.
and once again, sex IS a mans birthright.

and i'm glad you say you wouldnt call me fat, but you lie, you would,
then, you'd hide behind youre pals, the po po pigs.
that's exactly how it works.

i am curious. ALL you feminists insist man has no right to sex. o.k then, what ARE we here for then dummy?
DONT say hang wallpaper, stage houses to sell,watch reality tv, etc

Anonymous said...

I will never have an abortion.

No, sex is not a birthright.

The men are for sex, friendship and romance. For some women for protection and financial help.

the woman

john halder said...

lol! for SOME women its for money,
nope, all of them. and romance=sex.
women dont need men for protection
protection against what?
just dial 911.cops jump when you call. evidence of any crime not necessary. the police salivate, AND cream in there pants at just the thought of arresting any man.
eivind has explained that men can't be 'pals' with women.

THE MAN

Anonymous said...

and emo: I only use this site for entertainment, not to construct arguments. It's not worth it in this case. And, no, I'm not Western at all.

john halder said...

well i think eivind simply doesn't go far enough in advocating rape.
for better or worse,-and has been shown by many serial( beloved by women, as shown on my blog)-killers and rapists one simply MUST kill the female after the rape so as to prevent detection and arrest.dna technology, fingerprinting techniques have improved drastically from womens beloved ted bundy period.
also, thouroughly cleaning up the scene using bleach, fire, etc is a MUST do.
rape? go for it!
a few good rules to remember: NEVER rape or kill anyone in your residence or vehicle.
and ALWAYS dump, preferably bury, the bodies in the deep woods.

just do EVERYTHING possible to avoid arrest.
i'd hate to see a good guy like eivind wind up in any prison.

Eivind Berge said...

John, you make me sound mild and reasonable. Which I am. It's the difference between misogyny and anti-feminism. I didn't say sex is a man's birthright, any more than equality is a woman's birthright, and I don't advocate murdering innocent women. However, I am arguing that sexual coercion is a legitimate weapon in the present gender war. Because the feminist powers that be have decided we are going to have a gender-equal society and use coercion to achieve this, it is entirely appropriate for men to retaliate in kind. Currently we have a gender war where only women show up, for the most part. Suppose men showed up in droves to fight, too, and used equally iniquitous weapons. That is what I am advocating.

Eivind Berge said...

@The Woman

Ugly girls and fat girls have a harder time, just like shorter guys. It sucks and it's not fair, but such is the law of nature. Very cruel, I agree.

These are not comparable at all. The floor is so much lower for men. Although she might have to settle for a beta, any woman can have sex promptly whenever she wants, and if she is fertile, she can have children. Equality would be raising the floor for men so we have equally easy access to sex and reproduction -- though not necessarily with the hottest women, of course.

By the way, I really like fat girls and in my view, no woman can be ugly while she is young. The notion of "ugly" girls is something I got over when I was in my early twenties and now I regard beauty as pretty much synonymous with youth and fertility. I think men commonly arrive at that realization as they get older. Sure, some women are hotter than others and we do tell them apart, but the ravages of time count for so much more that it's meaningless to call a young woman ugly, at least unless she is hideously deformed. There is no such thing as an ugly 20-year-old and no woman can be smoking hot at 50. The glamorized porno look you imagine we require is nonsense in my experience. Any woman of reproductive age with no makeup will do, and none of the women I have been in love with looked anything like a stereotypical porn star. I'm still not over Elisa and consider her an ideal woman after getting to sleep with her three years ago. Sadly she only wanted a one-night stand. I think she looks normal and she could have made me perfectly happy for life.

Anonymous said...

I could add more but I'm really tired of arguing.

Eivind, your argument is very clear and you have stated it many times now. I'd say your imperative, insisting that there should be sexual coersion, is utopian. It's not a practical, realistic option. We all know that it is not going to happen. And the American style men's movement will remain marginal. The men are not joining because the majority of Western men are satisfied. Yes, there are problems for both genders, but the majority really love freedom and exercise their choices (which are vast for the men now that they don't have to fulfill the provider role anymomre).

You are right about youth and fertility, that's the way it should be for any normal man - they should desire a natural woman in her fertile years. The men should desire a feminine woman, with an hourglass figure, not someone with thin prepubescent legs/body and artificial boobs stuck to it.

The problem is that the men today are spoiled by the overglamorized images that they desire more. Trust me, I know this. I see a difference in men's attention depending on whether I have made myself up or no (and I'm naturally pretty). But this is also to some extent biological, because emphasized features signal health and symmetry. That's the whole purpose of make up. But in natural circumstances, the mating should be succesful without make up or any artificial embelishments.

Men are different, some men are like Eivind, but some are more spoiled. Their constant demands for a glamorized appearence is really annoying. This doesn't really happen much in Scandinavia, UK and Germany, but in other places it is more common. I don't think men deserve to make demands if they are no longer the provider.

Well, this Elisa girl is a good match for you. It's sad that she doesn't want anything more, it would be smart to try to contact her again. If you still are not over her, it will make it difficult to open up to other women. You could also tone down the aggressiveness a little and smile more.

the woman

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting study about how men perceive potential mates:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98441&page=1

It doesn't contradict with what you say though. I think everyone, both men and women, generally prefer symmetry and health in looks (within a certain age range).

the woman

Anonymous said...

And btw this is why men should not postpone mating until past 35. Because then the options to get a younger woman become reduced (because at that point everyone is competing for a smaller pool of younger women). This is regardless of the fact that men make more money as they get older. Most women make money too, so this does not matter anymore.

john halder said...

lol! actually the reason men arent joining the mens movement are twofold. men in the west are NOT satisfied, trust ME, you never trust women.
1. a lot of them arent aware it exists! we are here to change that.
2.like the anti-war movement, protesting, petitions, everyone knows dont work.
once enough men get tired of being unemployed, shit on by women and your bff the copscum, the tide will turn.
and I'M the one who understands sex is a mans birthright.
how in the world could you NOT agree with that eivind?
in addition, womens SOLE function is to reproduce.
evolution is fact now people.
understanding and accepting we are animals and not divine beings left here by aliens might help out in these discussions.
so, eivind, you support rape as an answer to female economic equality, hypergamy, etc but you DON'T see sex is mans birthright?
that doesnt quite fit.

emotionally etc.. said...

"Hahahaha, you dumbass, I'm a free Nordic European, I will never accept this women hating bullshit.

You and Eivind will die alone. Because you do not recognize a simple thing like respect for a woman. I have followed these blogs for a long time, hoping to find a common ground. But he only had aggression and you only like porno whores. That's why you will both remain alone. I know that most Norwegian men are not like that. But if they ever get arrogant like you.. they will remain alone."

- This woman is so insanely stupid, why would we even dignify her useless, unstructured posts with replies.. ?? She is in fact a very poor ambassador for women, and if she had brains to speak of, would leave this blog, and leave it for some more competent female commenter to take her place. To me, she represents all that's trite, boring and completely uninteresting among women.

Add to that that there is no consistency at all to her thinking (a quite female trait, unfortunately), and that she doesn't even remember what she's written in her own posts even on the same day.. Quiet astonishing. First she is not a western woman at all, now she is a Nordic woman. (She very obviously is an average, American piece of trash.)

In any regard, I agree with Eivind pretty much, as far as beauty is concerned. And as for mating, no woman in her right mind rejects a rich man at 49, for instance, just because he is 49. She'll gladly have his kids. And since I am set for being pretty well to do later, I'll have no problem at all finding women to carry my babies. I've also never said anything that would lead a reasonably sane person - or any person with average reading comprehension - to believe that I only like porn models. This sub par commenting person should quit calling herself "the Woman". She is giving women a bad name, by doing so.

Also, she is so childish that she can't stop calling me "emo" - leading me to think she has no life, and needs our attention and quarreling here, to get through the day. She should just shoot herself in the face - in essence, like I wrote, fuck off and die. And why would she have a gun to shoot anyone in the face with, if she was Nordic? Only in Finland would that be possible - they have lax gun laws there.

E.T. said...

But onto the issue of advocating rape: While I really don't care that women are being raped - many of them seem to deserve it, and no one I know have ever been raped (guess all women I know are too classy to find themselves in such situations). Unless we are talking assault rapes. That is just not nice, and I don't mind men who do that being sent off to prison for a good few years. Here in Norway, mostly immigrant men do that, and more often than not, from underdeveloped countries.

Now, I wouldn't promote assault rape of a stranger in any way, shape or form. And if it's an unruly woman you are in a relationship with, that tries to deny you sex, in order to have control over you, and get more money and expensive gifts, forcing yourself upon her is not rape. It simply isn't and never will be. Any woman who files charges over that, may be gang-raped by African immigrants later, and I would not care at all for her misery. But the Africans would most likely not know what a bitch she is, and so their act would be a bad one anyway. That's the problem with raping any total stranger - it's terrorism, pure and simple. Regardless of whether the woman is a bitch or not, the act of doing it is easily condemnable. If she happens to be a bitch, well fine, but how are we to know?

Don't rape strangers, anyone. It simply isn't nice or recommendable. I don't know about the US, but here in Norway, there are plenty of sluts around to have sex with. I've had sex with more than 150 already - most of them here in Norway. And although women in their late forties may not be considered "hot", some of them are still very sexy, and they are much more uninhibited than women in their early twenties. I've tried a lot of both, and believe I know what I am talking about here.. And again, as for securing someone to carry your babies, just get rich. It's that easy. Disregard everything "the Woman" writes - she's a slut, and most likely ugly (also not young).

(Contd., part 2 of 2)

Btw, here's a story that illustrates how rape is not a nice thing, especially the way John Halder seems to recommend it - in the woods somewhere. No, don't do it. Not nice. (Warning: quite gruelling images at the top of the article if you open this link):

http://www.bestgore.com/murder/photos-of-a-woman-who-was-raped-and-brutally-murdered/

E.T. said...

"Well, this Elisa girl is a good match for you. It's sad that she doesn't want anything more, it would be smart to try to contact her again. If you still are not over her, it will make it difficult to open up to other women. You could also tone down the aggressiveness a little and smile more.

the woman"

- And here's another example of why this dumb-fuck piece of female trash is not worth reading at all. First she's yapping some nonsense about dying alone, then she wants Eivind to pursue some given girl, and strangely voice off that she is a good match for Eivind.

- The examples that this "non-Western Nordic woman" (who uses every US cultural cliché and turn of phrase out there - but let's not assume she's American, anyone.. ) is completely incapable of coherent, rational thought, just line up one by one. So I say again, no wonder she has time to kill by hanging around here, every God damn day.. Pestering the blog with the waste products of her defecating cerebral unit.

Anonymous said...

Calm down, emo. It is not manly to be so hysterical. I'm not old and not ugly at all (I have long hair and a pretty face and I'm told that I'm pretty every day). I'm not American or with a Western background whatsoever. I live in the northern part of the former SU. And I would never marry a 49 year old guy just because he's rich. I would not even date him. 49 is grossly old. I could have done that many times before already - I had many marriage proposals from much older Western guys (and not just older). I do not consider men over 32-35 for mating. Besides Scandinavian men are known here as incredibly stingy. Well, I don't care, since I'm only concerned with a man's personality and looks. And I would never consider a man who has slept around much, that's really dirty, who knows what kind of stds he's carrying. There are plenty of nice, young, healthy males around. Btw, the Scandinavian ones are also very good looking and not spoiled. You, guys, here are just an exception, most Norwegian males are not like you.

Anonymous said...

But having said that.. you sadistic assholes here are a warning... it's good that you wrote all this stuff about rape and murder. Now any men who approaches will be under much heavier scrutiny than ever before. He will get much less trust from me than before. And he will not get sex or affection easily. Who knows what the men are like these days, you certainly cannot trust most of them anymore.

the woman

Anonymous said...

And what hypocrites you are... you sleep with cougars yet you diss older women.

But see how this manwhore totally revoked Eivind's argument that the Norwegian women are difficult. Not at all! They're easy. If emoslut could get laid with 150 women, sure there must be some for Eivind too.

Anonymous said...

And one more comment about guys setting out to find wives when they're over 40... don't be so self assured. The only way you could do this is indeed if you are very rich AND generous (and preferably ok looking). Which most guys aren't. Most women in the West will not choose a man 10 years her senior. Guys on dating sites struggle to get a woman even their own age, much less much younger. If you are 45-50 and vying for a 25 or even a 30 year old, you must realize that the competition for her will be much more fierce. Men in their 20s and 30s, as well as 40s and 50s will compete for that small female demographic. Besides women are no longer dying to get married. Some women will rather stay alone than settle for a much older man or a partner she can't fall in love with. I know this because I get approached and contacted by men 5-10-15, even 20 years my senior ALL the time and it has NEVER even occured to me to give them the time of the day (unless they are a really special man, which usually isn't the case). Sorry, but this is how you yourself treat women (as commodities and as pure flesh).

the woman

the woman

E.T. said...

"Besides Scandinavian men are known here as incredibly stingy. Well, I don't care, since I'm only concerned with a man's personality and looks. And I would never consider a man who has slept around much, that's really dirty, who knows what kind of stds he's carrying. There are plenty of nice, young, healthy males around. Btw, the Scandinavian ones are also very good looking and not spoiled. You, guys, here are just an exception, most Norwegian males are not like you."

- See, she contradicts herself all the time! I especially dug the part where she mentions that around where she lives, Scandinavian men are considered stingy.. Then pulls herself together, and stating that this doesn't matter to her anyway. Now, that's rich.

Alright then, I'm ready to believe she is not American. She comments far too early in the day for that - especially considering this is a Sunday. So, she is from a northern region of the former Soviet Union. And since there are many Scandinavian guys visiting, it's probably not in northern Russia (although a city like Murmansk, for instance, gets a lot of Scandinavian visitors). Most likely she's from the Baltic region. Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia. They get a lot of Scandinavian males visiting there, not least as sex tourists. Those three countries are full of slim and sexy women, who want out, and see a Scandinavian man as a possible ticket. She must have learned her English from reading a lot of American forums and web-sites, plus seen US movies and TV etc. I would have much preferred a Baltic sex-kitten who had learned her English from more refined sources..

Speaking of age, 49 was just a number I threw out. I don't find 49 old. My father got offers from sexy teenagers even when he was in his late fifties (just recently). But by 49, a man can be quite rich. And also experienced.

Nevermind, I suggested we don't reply to this obnoxious bitch, and I stand by that. Don't feed the troll, as it were.. I will mention though, that I am around a lot of women, also from numerous countries, and just recently co-habitated with a 22 year old Polish woman who is an absolute stunner. She knocks the air out of most guys, the first time they see her. A female friend of mine saw one picture, and said "clear cut tenner". Now, how old is her boyfriend.. ? He is in his late forties...

Why should we give a bleepin' fuck what this useless, random bitch who has become hooked to this blog says about anything? Even if she is pretty, as she boasts of herself to be, she's still dafter than my shoe-laces.

The unpalatable rag-doll can't eve shake the childish insistance on calling me "emo". I'd almost have thought she might be a teenager, unless she wrote that she was spoiled by a number of good-looking guys in her early twenties. (And now the retard tells me that it's off-turning when I speak of how many sexual partners I've had.. That certainly doesn't seem to turn off women in general, though. The higher number of women a Norwegian guy has fucked, the more sluts line up to be fucked by him - as demonstrated in numerous instances.)

And that'll be my last words in reference to the qualities of this rather odd female individual.

Eivind Berge said...

Who knows what the men are like these days, you certainly cannot trust most of them anymore.

Yes, and why do you suppose that is? The same feminism of which you speak so warmly is also breeding monsters. Celibate, enraged, bitter, hateful, volatile men, and most of them don't warn you beforehand on a blog. I hope one day you incur the wrath of one of the monsters you helped create.

Anonymous said...

- See, she contradicts herself all the time! I especially dug the part where she mentions that around where she lives, Scandinavian men are considered stingy.. Then pulls herself together, and stating that this doesn't matter to her anyway. Now, that's rich.
I’m just here to entertain myself. The gender related topics are usually very engaging. Yes, I piled everything together and I don’t worry about the language or spelling mistakes, because as I said, I’m here just to entertain myself. Let me clarify – I’ve met most of the Scandinavian men over in Scandinavia (where I often visit), and very few here. However, there are quite a few men that come here wife hunting. Especially English and German men have never seen such beautiful women.
My point about money was that I personally don’t prioritize money as the man’s number one asset, I value men based on their looks and personality first. Only then they’re earning power. I will rather select a poor handsome man than an older rich man. Having said that, many women think otherwise and the women here have often told me that they find Scandinavian (and Germanic men in general) very, very stingy. Which is indeed the case, yet it doesn’t bother me personally as I value them for other characteristics. Again, I value Scandinavian men above all because of their looks (especially Swedish men are genetically blessed). And second for their respect for women – which you the particular men here do not have, so you are a stark exception among most Nordic men. I’m good looking and I would only consider dating a good looking, respectful, tolerant Nordic man below 35.
The 22 year old Polish girl will most likely abandon her 45 year old lover after several years. This has been statistically proved. Most of these relationships are just for fun/money and not viable. She may stay with him or she may not, but she is certainly in it for the money, not the man. By the time she turns 26-28 and probably even earlier, she will dump the man after having taken advantage of him. I also dated someone 13 years my senior when I was 19 (though I didn’t take money from him), but I abandoned him after 2 years and a thought never crossed my mind to ever marry him.
I have read many books in English (as well as Russian and even one book in Norwegian) that you probably don’t even know of, but I don’t have the need to brag about it. And, yes, I am feminine in real life, blonde and cute, but I am nice only to respectful men. If you are aggressive, propagate rape, violence, look down on women and act like a male slut, I will never have respect for you.
I find a 49 year old guy too old to mate with, this is the age when guys should start becoming grandads. The offers they get are from teenagers, to have sex for money, they don’t come from women 27-35 years old who know what they want. And experience counts for nothing if you don’t have a kind heart or a nice body. I’m being courted by a 10 years older Swedish man as we speak, and he doesn’t have the slightest idea that I do not even consider him boyfriend material.
And men sluts are not appealing, as much as you want to believe the evo psych. A man who has slept with a 100 women and brags about it, seems dirty to me and there is nothing desirable about him whatsoever. He has low standards, is most likely unhealthy and I would never risk him touching me (don’t want to get infected).
I’m calling you emo because that’s a funny word play.

the woman

Anonymous said...

I didn't create any monsters, Eivind. I never cheated on a man, nor did I take a single penny from a guy. I cooked and took care of men. For what? It was all in vain. It is the men who are fickle and avoid responsibility (family). They rather fuck around with a 150 random women or buy fancy cars.

I will never incur hateful men in real life, as I simply avoid such types. I don't date and I don't talk to misogynists. I date and talk to only to tolerant, emancipated men with manners. I'm now aware, after having read the MRA sites, what some men really feel and think, which they would only reveal online. It's good that it's now out in the open. Whenever I meet a man, including from Norway, I will evaluate carefully to see if there are any traces of misogyny, self-entitlement and MRAism.

E.T. said...

So we are still supposed to reply to her? Well well.. At least she now managed to write a semi-long, almost coherent message. Almost impressive.

"The 22 year old Polish girl will most likely abandon her 45 year old lover after several years. This has been statistically proved. Most of these relationships are just for fun/money and not viable. She may stay with him or she may not, but she is certainly in it for the money, not the man. By the time she turns 26-28 and probably even earlier, she will dump the man after having taken advantage of him."

- So women take advantage of men? Now that comes as a surprise... Not. However, this Polish woman is a very nice one, a close personal friend of mine, and told me on even the first day of getting to know one another, when we were the two of us together, alone (for about four days, so, quite intense) that she preferred daddy-daughter relationships - as she had problems with her own daddy (daddy issues).

I don't think she nearly takes as much advantage of him, as my ex did me (or other guys of hers). She's much too nice and intelligent for that. She's also, like I said, a stunner, and superior to my ex in every possible way, save perhaps the femininity factor. She excels at higher education (various universities), is tan, has fantastic teeth, bone structure, long, flowing hair and is six feet tall. She looks very much like Milla Jovovich (who she had not heard of, but she had been compared to Sophia Loren previously).

In any regard, if that guy gets to have sex with her even only 10 times, it must have been worth it.. She's a goddess, and that guy is rather fat, and has mostly grey hair. He even has a daughter her age.. And is divorced. So everything he gets, must be a bonus for him.

Whatever. You also mention evo psych. I disregard that stuff. I also never read any PUA stuff.

Lastly, I respect women a lot. Perhaps it's hard for a woman to separate her writing persona from her true self/identity, but to most intelligent males, that should be no problem - men are known to be far more apt at compartmentalizing than women are. We do it naturally.

Women find me charming and easy going, and I've even nailed a few real nazi feminists. Only recently I've heard through a few male friends (who don't know each other) that this and that woman called me a "sweet guy". Yes, they even used the same expression.

So there you go.

Most intelligent people are kinda complex. Perhaps you are too. But it would be very nice if you did not contradict yourself so much and so often - sometimes even within the very same post...

(Not that you are intelligent or anything, of course - like I said, you mostly come across as dafter than my shoe-laces ;-)

Anonymous said...

I find it very easy to separate my opinion on women hating blogs from my real life communication. There are many things that I say here that I would never say to a man that I'm romantically interested in.

I realize I piled things together and addressed everything simultaneously, but I don't take back any word I said. I'm against self-entitlement and the "have your cake and eat it too" attitude that so many men tend to have - they want a young porno star looking girl, but then they get upset that she is expensive.

Yes, some women have daddy issues, but those are rare cases. There is a balance in most cases. Most women I know do not go for much older and the ones that look like models are usually escorts and high maintenance.

The old dude is indeed lucky that he gets to fuck her. And again, women until age 23-25 undergo a lot of tranformation. She will change a lot as she goes through her 20s.
Either way she is no longer fucking you and neither is the crazy Norwegian bimbo.

You do not appear sweet at all. You are very snobbish, treat women like a piece of meat and are rather condescending. You do not even accept the Nordic model and gender equality. In fact, you are the very opposite of what I find attractive in Nordic men and the opposite of those very qualities for which I love them so much.

And again, I write here for entertainment, I don't need to prove my intellect here or brag about the really serious literature I've delved into. I don't take these misogynist sites seriously enough to even try to argue rationality. It's not worth it.

the woman

john halder said...

same here! since women's sole function is to reproduce. why argue with ANY female?

men invented EVERYTHING.
and women ARE just meat.
if you didnt have that pussy,
NO man would even look at you.
nothing personal of course.

E.T. said...

"Most women I know do not go for much older and the ones that look like models are usually escorts and high maintenance."

- This reminds of that Russian saying: "All women are whores, and the more beautiful, the more of a whore.. "

While I am sure you like Scandinavian guys for how well trained by Scandinavian aunties/state feminism they are, why aren't you married to one right now? I suspect the truth is that you know at heart that in the long run, they'd bore you to death, and you'd have to become adulterous.

Pretty much by the book, so to speak - as outlined for instance here:

http://www.womensinfidelity.com/

E.T. said...

I have a feeling you'd like for someone - me, for instance - to tell you what a reaking slut you are, and then fuck you like an animal, pulling your hair and spanking your butt.

After all, you did fuck a lot of great guys/lovers a lot, in your very early twenties.

You come here for a reason, and it's not pure entertainment, as you'd have yourself think - you are attracted to those who aren't about to respect you, for just being a woman. You want to earn the respect - not just have it dealt on a silver platter, simply because you are fair - or punished and spanked if you have been a naughty girl. Just as naughty girls should be. Someone who respects you enough to hold you to a high standard, and never accept anything inferior to that from you.

E.T. said...

Someone who'll also take you by surprise, from time to time..

Anonymous said...

ET: It's amazing how strongly you believe this assumption that a woman intrinsically yearns for someone who will maltreat her. I do not honestly yearn for such a man and there really is no way that I could persuade you – you wouldn't believe me, because many guys revel in this idea so much. It is a stereotype that many men do not like to give up. Even betas support the idea that a “real man” should behave like a careless brute and that the woman will always like the “real man”. There is a tiny element of truth in it but you distort the whole idea so far that it does not correspond to the modern reality at all. Women value security above all and that sort of a man does not represent that.Yes, there is some charm in an aggressive man who stands out, but what most women eventually want is family and family requires slightly different characteristics in a man.

I only like rough play in bed sometimes with a long term boyfriend who is otherwise totally respectful of me and believes I'm an equal.

Btw, many Russian sayings are incredibly sexist (that's just typical of that culture). I do not equate a woman's beauty with how porn like she is made out to be, to me beauty is purely physical, genetic. It has to be there independent of the human as the Nature's work of art. That saying is only true so far as one admits that the men trade in their financial resources for the woman's charm. Which is to some extent fair (and even natural) – a woman's youth, beauty and feminine charm should not be dealt out for free (when that happens, as is happening now in the West, procreation is jeopardized because men have no incentive anymore to create a family – they get the sex for free). Even though I personally don't like this tradition – I prefer the modern, egalitarian relationship (on the condition that the man indeed contributes equally), but the truth is, the older system was better for the woman. The men will always biologically desire the more beautiful and younger female, it's just that nowadays they feel they don't have to exchange their resources for the woman's biological value. This is why so many Russian women oppose Western style feminism (because they themselves make very little money and having “equality” would make them lose out really big time).

Yes, I have fucked a lot of great guys and I am still doing that (when I feel like it). I'm not married to a Scandi guy basically for two reasons. One is because I have always been very nationalistic. Even though I always loved the Nordics, I was convinced for a long time that I should have a family only with someone of my own nationality. I honestly felt that it would be a kind of a betrayal if I got together with a man from another country and I know that my parents would also be upset about it. The second reason is that I do have relatively high visual standards. Not too high, but still some. And I have not lived there for a long time, just travelled. I'm planning to move to Sweden in about a year's time. I absolutely love Swedish men and that way I will at least be surrounded by them (going there just for the weekends is not enough, but just from the atmosphere I feel there, from the attitudes of men, I feel almost like in paradise, it's not like I don't attract men here, but over there it is so much easier and they are much more attentive). So this is my plan and even if I don't find anyone, I will still be embraced by their astonishingly beautiful and kind presence. No, I don't find the egalitarian, female respecting men boring at all. I want boring (boring=safe). I don't need some wild romeo. Somebody who is quiet, respectful and good looking is perfectly enough.

You will probably not believe me, but this is the case. I was raised differently than those bimbos. :)
And, btw, those “boring” egalitarian Swedish men are so jävla good in bed!

the woman

Anonymous said...

ET: "Someone who respects you enough to hold you to a high standard, and never accept anything inferior to that from you."

Well, this "high standard" and the incredible list of demands (not reciprocated by any real respect or support) is exactly what I'm utterly tired of and enraged about. So what I desire is the exact opposite - respect for me as a woman and acceptance of who I am naturally, without some idiotic, unfair "standards".

john halder said...

haha, uh, wrong again.
if procreation is threatened in the west, it's DEF NOT because we get the sex for free, i wish.
it's because getting married is like going to vegas, you'll get cleaned out.and if you have kids? you just might never see em again.

Anonymous said...

It's not like that in Europe, halder.

E.T. said...

This Baltic beauty doth spin a good yarn...

Unknown said...

This blog post was simply a brilliant piece of work. Congratultions, Eivind. The comments are very good too, but what they seem to have in common is generalizing too much from personal experience.

Take de Selby, a classic greater beta. He's gone the golden pussy route - screwing around is his youth, and ending up in a stable relationship with someone he loves, and now in his advanced age and wisdom, he teaches the new generation. How nice. Women like him, mostly as a friend, but sometimes more. He understands them and likes their presense. Good for you, de Selby. But the point is, fewer and fewer can walk your route. Younger women prefer screwing around with high worth alpha males much more than when you were young. Instead guys like you in their 20s today end up marrying at 35 with women under the standard that made you feel like you met the love of your life because nature very wisely gave you that feeling, who will never ever get that alpha that fucked and dumped them with the rest of the morning trash out of their hearts. And then there's the 50%< chance that the marriage will end in a divorce, which increasingly makes men into slaves.

And minor alpha ET - if you've screwed more women than Casanova (121, was it?) it says something about you, not how easy the Norwegian sluts are. Most guys like to do what you do, they just can't. And sure, as a Norwegian guy I know Norwegian teensluts fuck anyone their hungry little pussies fancy, including masculine or charming 50 year olds who have done well in life. But it's not all that common, and it's really dependent on getting offers from the girls. And can you even imagine well situated 50 year old guys trawling for teenies in Norway? So while it may well happen, only a tiny amount of 50 year olds will actually have them within reach.

As for Eivind, you admit your views are colored by the fact that you're experiencing a terrible dry spell, and well, they are. Friendship betwen men and women is fully possible, she just has to be less attractive than the other women you're screwing, or pose a risk big enough to deter you from it. Also, a lot of women are just bad or useless in bed, but they can be charming and great fun. Of course, they will still pull other women when they're seen with you. Friendship material. Taking them for a spin definitely helps, you never know if you missed someone worth fucking unless you try. But once you have access to a few women, being just friends comes quite natural, I think.

And finally Woman, you seem to be under the impression that we're falling for all the normal cliches women say when they want to feel good about themselves and rationalize the world so it fits neatly into their handbags. They're just impulses from your brain, they don't mirror reality. We know "I'd NEVER screw that guy" is woman for "I'd like to screw that guy", you're not convincing anyone. And sure you wouldn't marry a rich, smart handsome 49 year old. We all believe that.

john halder said...

i dont know why, but i wasted a few minutes to read some of this yvette lessards blog.

typical misandrist.
gotta love her insistence that men are routinely raped.

the ONLY time that men are raped are in prison settings.
and still very rare.
so, anyway, i posted some links on here 'rape advocacy' thread that i got from falserapesociety.

guess what happened?
she rejected these research studies done by independent, impartial groups that consistently find that at least 50% of all rape claims are later proven false, as MINE.
nope, i had nothing to do with them, lol
then, responded in that thread to me that the studies,ha, didnt say they were about womens false rape reporting and didnt include MENS FALSE rape reports!
what a fucking moron.
too stupid to live.

good news though, she banned me from commenting.
misandrist blogs are bad enough, but any feminist site that insists theres an epidemic of men being raped, AND also, that MEN are making false rape reports?
i dont need to be posting on!